---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, July 3, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 130

                             Headlines


250 WEST: Awaits Ruling in Bid to Stay Proceedings in N.Y. Suit
ACCURACY INC: Securities Suit to Halt Shareholder Vote Junked
AFFYMAX INC: Faces Securities Lawsuit in N.D. California
ALAMEDA COUNTY: To Pay $1MM Settlement to Protesters
AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORP: Gains $15.8MM From Suits v. Drug Makers

APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Charging $1 for High-Def. Feeds
AUDIENCE INC: June 28 Hearing Held in Securities Lawsuit
BANK OF NEW YORK: Ivy Assets Awaits Final OK of $210M Settlement
BANK OF NEW YORK: Wins Initial OK for Medical Capital Suit Accord
BANK OF NEW YORK: Continues to Face ERISA Violation Suit in N.Y.

BARRICK GOLD: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York
BP PLC: U.S. Investors Seek Class Action Status for Oil Spill Suit
BROADWIND ENERGY: Final Hearing on Securities Suit Accord in June
BROADWIND ENERGY: Tontine Defendants Seek Indemnification
CHA HOLLYWOOD: 9th Cir. Says Removal of Class Action Is Fair

CHEVRON USA: Receives Favorable Ruling From Calif. Appeals Court
CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Wins Final OK of Stock Suit Accord
CONSTELLIUM HOLDCO: Defends Suit by Retirees and USW vs. Unit
COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Settles BofA Home Loan Class Action for $100MM
CROSS COUNTRY: Mediation in Suit for Travelling Employees Fail

DORCHESTER MINERALS: Lawsuit Over Royalty Settled, Dismissed
ELI LILLY: Lawsuits Filed Over Byetta Side Effects
EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Defends Four Wage and Hour Suits vs. Units
EPICOR SOFTWARE: Trial in Merger-Related Suit Set for April 2014
EXXONMOBIL CORP: Baton Rouge Residents File Leak Class Action

FACEBOOK INC: Seeks Dismissal of Robbins Geller's Derivative Suit
FAT COW: Employees File Wage Class Action in California
FORECLOSURE PROFESSIONALS: Faces Class Action Over Running Scam
GAWKER MEDIA: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violation
GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces Class Action Over Diet Supplements

GMX RESOURCES: Bids to Dismiss Securities Suit Remain Pending
GREEN DOT: Calif. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
GT ADVANCED: Contributes $1MM to Settle Securities Suit
GUITAR CENTER: Appeal From Dismissal of Antitrust Claims Pending
GUITAR CENTER: Discovery Continues in "Pellanda" Suit vs. Unit

GUITAR CENTER: Judgment Bid in Song-Beverly Act Suit Pending
GUITAR CENTER: Units Defend "Stewart" Wage and Hour Class Suit
HONDA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Accord Engines
HUNTINGTON PREFERRED: Parent Continues to Defend MERS Class Suit
IGATE CORP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in California

INSTANT TAX: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Tax Returns
INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Continues to Defend 2 Wage and Hour Suits
JC PENNEY: Loses Bid to Dismiss Class Action Over Robo-Texts
JPMORGAN CHASE: Squire Sanders Discusses Court Ruling
KEYNOTE SYSTEMS: Being Sold to Thoma for Too Little, Suit Claims

LHC GROUP: W.D. La. Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
LINKEDIN CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Data Breach Class Action
MANAGED FUTURES: "Abu Dhabi" Class Suit Dismissed in April
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Aug. 30 Deadline Set for Consent Decree
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Labor Violations

MEDTRONIC: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Statements
MERCEDES HOLDINGS: Jones Day Discusses Class Action Ruling
MERCK & CO: Lawsuits Filed Over Januvia Side Effects
METROPCS WIRELESS: Faces Class Suit Over Service
MICHAEL FOODS: Antitrust Tag-Along Case v. Unit Resolved in April

MORGAN STANLEY: "Abu Dhabi" Class Suit Dismissed in April
MGP OFFICE: Faces Several Suits Over Merger With Brookfield
MYTECHHELP LLC: Faces Class Action Over Bank Fraud
NOVA SCOTIA HOME: Certification Hearing Adjourned Until July 8
NOVOPAY: Nine Worst-Hit Teachers in Payroll Fiasco File Suit

ONEWEST BANK: Faces Class Action Over Breach of Contract
ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Amended Complaint Filed in Antitrust Suit
ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Ark. Court Certifies Class in Hotel Taxes Suit
ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: N.Y. Supreme Court Certifies Hotel Taxes Suit
SILVER SPRING: Court Refuses to Certify Suit Over Smart Meters

SMART ONLINE: Yet to Issue Stocks Under "Beauregard" Suit Deal
SOUNDBITE COMMUNICATIONS: Indemnifies GameStop in TCPA Suit
SOUNDBITE COMMUNICATIONS: Sued for A2P SMS, Wants 2ergo to Cover
SPIRIT REALTY: Faces Suit in Maryland Over Cole Credit Merger
SPRINT NEXTEL: Ordered to Pay Lawyer Fees in Rights-of-Way Suit

STARBUCKS CORP: Baristas, Shift Supervisors to Split Tips
TALENTI GELATO: Recalls Toasted Almond Gelato
UNITED STATES: Class Suit v. SEC Over Stanford Scheme Tossed
URBAN OUTFITTERS: Faces Overtime Class Action
VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Offer

VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suit Over "Redline" Diet Supplements
WELLS FARGO: Judge Certifies Calif. Borrowers' Class Action
WILLIAMS OLEFINS: Faces Class Action Over Chemical Plant Explosion
WINDSTREAM CORPORATION: Settles Gross Receipts Surcharge Lawsuit
WISE MEDIA: Fraud Class Action Proceeds in California

* Automakers' Bid for Arbitration Threatens Consumer Protection
* Legal Experts Expect Wave of Suits Over Unpaid Internships


                             *********


250 WEST: Awaits Ruling in Bid to Stay Proceedings in N.Y. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
250 West 57th St. Associates L.L.C. is awaiting a court decision
on a motion to stay all proceedings relating to the settlement of
a consolidated class action lawsuit in New York, according to the
Company's May 13, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

250 West is a New York limited liability company organized as a
joint venture on May 25, 1953.  On September 30, 1953, 250 West
acquired fee title to the building known as 250 West 57th Street,
formerly known as the Fisk Building, and the land thereunder
located at 250-264 West 57th Street, New York, New York
(collectively, the Property).  On November 30, 2001, 250 West
converted to a limited liability company under New York law and is
now known as 250 West 57th St. Associates L.L.C.  The conversion
did not change any aspect of the assets and operations of the
Company other than to protect its participants from future
liability to a third party.  The Company's members are Peter L.
Malkin and Anthony E. Malkin, each of whom also acts as an agent
for holders of participations in their respective member interests
in the Company.  The Members in the Company hold senior positions
at Malkin Holdings LLC, One Grand Central Place, 60 East 42nd
Street, New York, New York, which provides supervisory and other
services to the Company and Lessee.

The Company does not operate the Property.  It leases the Property
to Fisk Building Associates L.L.C. (the Lessee) under a long-term
net operating lease dated May 1, 1954 (the Lease).  In 1985, the
Participants in the Company consented to the Company's Agents
granting Lessee four options to extend the Lease, in each case for
an additional 25 year renewal period, the last expiring in 2103,
all on the same terms as the original lease.  The Agents intend to
grant such options on behalf of the Company, subject to Lessee's
compliance with such consents.  Such options have been granted by
the Agents and exercised by Lessee as to (a) the first renewal
period from October 1, 2003, through September 30, 2028, and (b)
the second renewal period from October 1, 2028, through
September 30, 2053.  The Participants in the Company have
consented to the granting of options to the Lessee to extend the
lease for two additional 25-year renewal terms expiring in 2103.
Lessee is a New York limited liability company whose members
consist of, among others, Anthony E. Malkin and entities for the
benefit of members of Peter L. Malkin's and Anthony E. Malkin's
family.

Malkin Holdings and Peter L. Malkin, a member in the Company, were
engaged in a proceeding with Lessee's former managing agent,
Helmsley-Spear, Inc., commenced in 1997, concerning the
management, leasing, and supervision of the Property that is
subject to the Lease to Lessee.  In this connection, certain costs
for legal and professional fees and other expenses were paid by
Malkin Holdings and Mr. Malkin.  Malkin Holdings and Mr. Malkin
have represented that such costs will be recovered only to the
extent that (a) a competent tribunal authorizes payment or (b) an
investor voluntarily agrees that his or her proportionate share be
paid. On behalf of himself and Malkin Holdings, Mr. Malkin has
requested, or intends to request, such voluntary agreement from
all investors, which may include renewing such request in the
future for any investor who previously received such request and
failed to confirm agreement at that time.  Because any related
payment has been, or will be, made only by consenting investors,
the Company has not provided for the expense and related liability
with respect to such costs in these financial statements.

In March 2012, five putative class actions, or the Class Actions,
were filed in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, by
Participants in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. ("ESBA")
and several other entities supervised by the Supervisor (on
March 1, 2012, March 7, 2012, March 12, 2012, March 14, 2012, and
March 19, 2012).  The plaintiffs assert claims against Malkin
Holdings LLC, Malkin Properties, L.L.C., Malkin Properties of New
York, L.L.C., Malkin Properties of Connecticut, Inc., Malkin
Construction Corp., Anthony E. Malkin, Peter L. Malkin, the Estate
of Leona M. Helmsley, Empire State Realty OP, L.P. and Empire
State Realty Trust, Inc. for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust
enrichment, and/or aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty.
They allege, among other things, that the terms of the
Consolidation and the process by which it was structured
(including the valuation that was employed) are unfair to the
participants in the existing entities, the Consolidation provides
excessive benefits to Malkin Holdings and its affiliates and the
then-draft prospectus/consent solicitation filed with the SEC
failed to make adequate disclosure to permit a fully informed
decision about the proposed Consolidation.  The complaints seek
money damages and injunctive relief preventing the proposed
Consolidation.  The actions were consolidated and co-lead
plaintiffs' counsel were appointed by the New York State Supreme
Court by order dated June 26, 2012.  Furthermore, an underlying
premise of the Class Actions, as noted in discussions among
plaintiffs' counsel and defendants' counsel, was that the
Consolidation had been structured in such a manner that would
cause the participants in ESBA, 60 East 42nd St. Associates L.L.C.
and 250 West 57th St. Associates L.L.C. (the "subject LLCs")
immediately to incur substantial tax liabilities.

The parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement dated
September 28, 2012, resolving the Class Actions.  The Stipulation
of Settlement recites that the Consolidation was approved by
overwhelming consent of the participants in the private entities.
The Stipulation of Settlement states that counsel for the
plaintiff class satisfied themselves that they have received
adequate access to relevant information, including the independent
valuer's valuation process and methodology, that the disclosures
in the Registration Statement on Form S-4, as amended, are
appropriate, that the transaction presents potential benefits,
including the opportunity for liquidity and capital appreciation,
that merit the participants' serious consideration and that each
of named class representatives intends to support the transaction
as modified.  The Stipulation of Settlement further states that
counsel for the plaintiff class are satisfied that the claims
regarding tax implications, enhanced disclosures, appraisals and
exchange values of the properties that would be consolidated into
Empire State Realty Trust, Inc., and the interests of the
participants in the subject LLCs and the private entities, have
been addressed adequately, and they have concluded that the
settlement pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement and
opportunity to consider the proposed transaction on the basis of
revised consent solicitations are fair, reasonable, adequate and
in the best interests of the plaintiff class.

The defendants in the Stipulation of Settlement denied that they
committed any violation of law or breached any of their duties and
did not admit that they had any liability to the plaintiffs.

The terms of the settlement include, among other things (i) a
payment of $55 million, with a minimum of 80% in cash and maximum
of 20% in freely-tradable shares of common stock and/or freely-
tradable operating partnership units (all of which will be paid by
affiliates of Malkin Holdings (provided that none of Malkin
Holdings and its affiliates that would become a direct or indirect
subsidiary of Empire State Realty Trust, Inc. in the Consolidation
will have any liability for such payment) and the Estate of Leona
M. Helmsley and certain participants in the private entities who
agree to contribute) to be distributed, after reimbursement of
plaintiffs' counsel's court-approved expenses and payment of
plaintiffs' counsel's court-approved attorneys' fees and, in the
case of shares of common stock and/or operating partnership units,
after the termination of specified lock-up periods, to
participants in the subject LLCs and the private entities pursuant
to a plan of allocation to be prepared by counsel for plaintiffs;
(ii) defendants' agreement that (a) the IPO will be on the basis
of a firm commitment underwriting; (b) if, during the solicitation
period, any of the three subject LLC's percentage of total
exchange value is lower than what is stated in the final
prospectus/consent solicitation by 10% or more, such decrease will
be promptly disclosed by defendants to participants in the subject
LLCs; and (c) unless total gross proceeds of $600,000,000 are
raised in the IPO, defendants will not proceed with the
transaction without further approval of the subject LLCs; and
(iii) defendants' agreement to make additional disclosures in the
prospectus/consent solicitation regarding certain matters (which
are included therein).  The Defendants have also acknowledged the
work of plaintiffs and their counsel was a material factor in
defendants' implementation of the change in the Consolidation
that, as originally proposed, would have required the exchange of
participation interests for Class A common stock, which are
taxable on receipt, and that now permits participants instead to
elect to receive operating partnership units and Class B common
stock, which permit tax deferral.  The Participants in the subject
LLCs and private entities will not be required to bear any portion
of the settlement payment.  The payment in settlement of the Class
Actions will be made by the Estate of Leona M. Helmsley and
affiliates of Malkin Holdings (provided that none of Malkin
Holdings and its affiliates that would become a direct or indirect
subsidiary of Empire State Realty Trust, Inc. in the Consolidation
will have any liability for such payment) and certain participants
in the private entities who agree to contribute.  The Company will
not bear any of the settlement payment.

The settlement further provides for the certification of a class
of participants in the three subject LLCs and all of the private
entities, other than defendants and other related persons and
entities, and a release of any claims of the members of the class
against defendants and related persons and entities, as well as
underwriters and other advisors.  The release in the settlement
excludes certain claims, including but not limited to, claims
arising from or related to any supplement to the Registration
Statement on Form S-4 that is declared effective to which the
plaintiffs' counsel objects in writing, which objection will not
be unreasonably made or delayed, so long as plaintiffs' counsel
has had adequate opportunity to review such supplement.  The
settlement is subject to court approval.  It is not effective
until such court approval is final, including the resolution of
any appeal.  The Defendants continue to deny any wrongdoing or
liability in connection with the allegations in the Class Actions.

On January 18, 2013, the parties jointly moved for preliminary
approval of such settlement, for permission to send notice of the
settlement to the class, and for the scheduling of a final
settlement hearing (collectively, "preliminary approval").

On January 28, 2013, six participants in ESBA filed an objection
to preliminary approval, and cross-moved to intervene in the
action and for permission to file a separate complaint on behalf
of ESBA participants.  On February 21, 2013, the court denied the
cross motion of such objecting participants, and the court denied
permission for such objecting participants to file a separate
complaint as part of the class action, other than permission to
join the case by separate counsel solely for the purpose of
supporting the allegation of the objecting participants that the
buyout will deprive non-consenting participants in ESBA of "fair
value" in violation of the New York Limited Liability Company Law.
The court rejected the objecting participants' assertion that
preliminary approval be denied and granted preliminary approval of
the settlement.

Pursuant to a decision issued on April 30, 2013, the court
rejected such allegation and ruled in the Supervisor's favor,
holding that the buyout provisions of the participation agreements
with respect to ESBA are legally binding and enforceable and that
participants do not have the rights that they claimed under the
New York Limited Liability Company Law.

On May 2, 2013, the court held a hearing regarding final approval
of the class action settlement.  At the conclusion of the hearing,
the judge stated that it was his intention to approve such
settlement and that he would issue a written decision approving
the settlement.  Of the approximately 4,500 participants in all
the subject LLCs and private entities included in the
consolidation, 12 opted out of the settlement.  Those who opted
out will not receive any share of the settlement proceeds, but can
pursue separate claims for monetary damages.  They are bound by
the settlement agreement regarding injunctive, declaratory and
other equitable relief, so they cannot seek an injunction to halt
the consolidation or IPO.  The settlement will not become final
until resolution of any appeal.

The participants who challenged the buyout provision moved before
the appellate court for a stay of all proceedings relating to the
settlement, including such a stay as immediate interim relief.  On
May 1, 2013, their request for immediate interim relief was
denied.  On May 13, 2013, the Supervisor filed its brief in
opposition to the motion for a stay.

The participants who challenged the buyout provision have
appealed.  Their motion for the stay is still pending and, if they
pursue it, will be submitted to the appellate court for decision.
Any decision on their appeal itself could take many months.  The
Supervisor cannot predict the timing or outcome of an appeal
process or any related relief, if such appeal were successful. If
the court's decision were reversed by the appellate court, there
is a risk that it could have a material adverse effect on Empire
State Realty Trust, Inc.

Although there can be no assurance, the Supervisor believes that
the trial court's decision was correct, that it will be upheld on
appeal, and that the appellate court will not grant the motion to
stay the proceedings relating to the class action settlement.

250 West 57th St. Associates L.L.C. is a New York limited
liability company organized as a joint venture in May 1953.  In
September 1953, the Company acquired fee title to the building
known as 250 West 57th Street and the land thereunder.  The
Company does not operate the Property but leases it to Fisk
Building Associates L.L.C. under a long-term net operating lease.


ACCURACY INC: Securities Suit to Halt Shareholder Vote Junked
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Santa Clara County Superior Court dismissed a suit filed
purportedly on behalf of a class of shareholders seeking to enjoin
a November 2012 shareholder vote at the annual meeting of Accuray
Incorporated, according to the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On November 1, 2012, a complaint was filed in Santa Clara County
Superior Court purportedly on behalf of a class of shareholders
seeking to enjoin the shareholder vote to be held at our annual
meeting scheduled for November 30, 2012.

The complaint named as defendants the Company and the members of
the board of directors and alleged that the disclosures in the
proxy statement for the annual meeting concerning the advisory
vote on executive compensation and the proposal to amend the
certificate of incorporation to increase the number of authorized
shares are inadequate and constitute a breach of fiduciary duty.

In addition to an injunction, the complaint sought unspecified
monetary damages and other relief. The annual meeting was held on
November 30, 2012. On December 28, 2012, the plaintiffs requested
dismissal of the case from the court without prejudice, which was
granted on January 3, 2013.


AFFYMAX INC: Faces Securities Lawsuit in N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
On February 27, 2013, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, naming as defendants Affymax, Inc.,
according to the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

Also named as defendants are certain of the company's officers,
Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Takeda Pharmaceuticals
U.S.A., Inc. and Takeda Global Research & Development Center, Inc.

A second complaint naming the same defendants was filed on
March 6, 2013.  The complaints, filed on behalf of purported
stockholders of the Company, allege violations of Section 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, in connection with allegedly false and
misleading statements made by the defendants regarding the
Company's business practices, financial projections and other
disclosures between December 8, 2011 and February 22, 2013, or the
Class Period.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class comprised of purchasers
of the Company's common stock during the Class Period and seeks
damages, costs and expenses and such other relief as determined by
the Court. On March 19, 2013 and March 29, 2013, respectively, two
derivative lawsuits were filed purportedly on behalf of the
Company in California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara
naming certain of our officers and directors as defendants.

The lawsuits allege that certain of the Company's officers and
directors breached their fiduciary duties related to the clinical
trials for OMONTYS and for representations regarding the Company's
business health, which was tied to the success of OMONTYS.  The
lawsuits also asserts claims for unjust enrichment and corporate
waste.

According to the Company, "Additional complaints may be filed
against us and our directors and officers related to our recall of
OMONTYS. Our management believes that we have meritorious defenses
and intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously. However, these
lawsuits are subject to inherent uncertainties, the actual cost
may be significant, and we may not prevail. We believe we are
entitled to coverage under our relevant insurance policies,
subject to a retention, but coverage could be denied or prove to
be insufficient."


ALAMEDA COUNTY: To Pay $1MM Settlement to Protesters
----------------------------------------------------
Chris Marshall at Courthouse News Service reports that Alameda
County and the city of Oakland agreed to pay more than $1 million
to protesters arrested during a Nov. 5, 2010, demonstration that
started after a court sentenced a white transit cop to two years
in jail for shooting an unarmed black man.

U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson gave preliminary approval to
the settlement on June 13.  The National Lawyers Guild announced
Monday that the city and county agreed to a $1.025 million total
payout.  A final approval hearing is scheduled for Sept. 9.

The protesters claimed in a class action filed in 2011 that police
from Oakland and Alameda County did not order the crowd to
disperse before closing of all means of exit and conducting mass
arrests in the vicinity of 6th Avenue and East 17th and 18th
streets near downtown Oakland.  They allege that protesters,
including legal observers, were left handcuffed in the street for
an excessive period of time and then held for up to 24 hours in
overcrowded holding cells, all of which they contend violated
their civil rights.

According to the announcement, the Oakland Police Department and
the Alameda Sheriff's Department have agreed to implement
"expedited procedures for processing and releasing people arrested
at demonstrations."

The demonstrators converged on downtown Oakland on November 5,
2010 to protest the two-year sentence for involuntary manslaughter
given to Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Police Officer Johannes
Mehserle for killing unarmed BART passenger Oscar Grant early on
New Year's Day in 2009.

The plaintiffs were part of a splinter group of protesters who
tried to march to the Fruitvale BART Station in East Oakland where
Grant was killed after the initial rally concluded, according to
the suit.

They claim police forced them down a side street, penned them in
without any means of exit, and arrested the lot.

The white transit policeman, Johannes Mehserle, had said he
thought he was using a Taser to control Grant on a train platform
-- not his pistol -- and shot and killed Grant as others looked
on.

The plaintiffs were represented by Rachel Lederman, Esq. --
bbrown@goodwinprocter.com -- of San Francisco's Rachel Lederman &
Alexsis C. Beach, Attorneys at Law.


AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORP: Gains $15.8MM From Suits v. Drug Makers
---------------------------------------------------------------
During the three and six months ended March 31, 2013,
Amerisourcebergen Corporation recognized gains of $3.5 million and
$15.8 million, respectively, relating class actions alleging
certain brand pharmaceutical manufacturers took improper actions
to delay or prevent generic drugs from entering the market,
according to the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

Numerous class action lawsuits have been filed against certain
brand pharmaceutical manufacturers alleging that the manufacturer,
by itself or in concert with others, took improper actions to
delay or prevent generic drugs from entering the market.

The Company has not been named a plaintiff in any of these class
actions, but has been a member of the direct purchasers' class
(i.e., those purchasers who purchase directly from these
pharmaceutical manufacturers).  None of the class actions have
gone to trial, but some have settled in the past with the Company
receiving proceeds from the settlement funds.  During the three
and six months ended March 31, 2013, the Company recognized gains
of $3.5 million and $15.8 million, respectively, relating the
above-mentioned class action lawsuits.

The Company recognized no such gains during the three and six
months ended March 31, 2012.  These gains, which are net of
attorney fees and estimated payments due to other parties, were
recorded as reductions to cost of goods sold in the Company's
consolidated statements of operations.


APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Charging $1 for High-Def. Feeds
------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service reports that Apple
charged customers an extra $1 for high-definition feeds to old
Apple devices that lack high-def capacity, a class action claims
in Federal Court.

In his complaint in San Francisco, Lead plaintiff Scott J.
Weiselberg claims Apple charges a $1 premium for renting HD
movies, TV shows and other videos from its iTunes store.  He
claims that the iTunes store's default download offering is the
more expensive HD option.

"Despite the fact that Apple makes the HD version of the content
offerings the default rental option, Apple failed to disclose to
customers using SD Apple mobile devices that the device could not
play the HD content being rented, and that the customer was
needlessly paying the premium for the HD option," the complaint
states.

Apple began offering movie and video download rentals for iPhones,
iPods or iPads in 2008.  Early models, however, were capable of
playing only standard-definition (SD) content.  As newer versions
were upgraded to be HD-capable, Apple began charging an extra $1
per rental for the premium service, according to the complaint.

Weiselberg, who owned a 3G SD iPhone, said he rented the movie
"Big Daddy" for $4.99 in June 2010, and was unaware an SD version
was available for $3.99.

He claims that Apple eventually added a notice to the download
process, letting people with SD devices know they could not play
HD content, but by then the tech giant had already collected
"millions of dollars in undeserved profits."

"Apple failed to disclose to consumers they were paying a premium
for HD downloads that would not be supported by the SD mobile
Apple device, and that the consumers would actually be viewing SD
content that was downloaded at the time of the rental," the
complaint states.

Weiselberg claims Apple's trick constitutes "fraudulent omissions"
in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law.

He also seeks restitution, disgorgement, an injunction and damages
for unjust enrichment.

Apple reported revenue of $156 billion in 2012.

It is the largest publicly traded corporation in the world by
market capitalization, with an estimated value of $626 billion as
of September 2012, according to the complaint.

Weiselberg is represented by Richard Kellner, Esq. --
info@kbklawyers.com -- with Kabateck Brown and Kellner, in Los
Angeles.


AUDIENCE INC: June 28 Hearing Held in Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on defendants' demurrers to dismiss a shareholder suit
filed against Audience, Inc. was scheduled for June 28, 2013,
according to the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On September 13, 2012, a purported shareholder filed a class
action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California
for Santa Clara County against the Company, the members of its
board of directors, two of its executive officers and the
underwriters of its IPO.

An amended complaint was filed on February 25, 2013, which
purports to be brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock issued in or traceable to the IPO. The
amended complaint added additional shareholder plaintiffs and
contains claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act.

The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages,
rescission and attorney's fees and costs. On March 1, 2013,
defendants responded to the amended complaint by filing a demurrer
moving to dismiss the amended complaint on the ground that the
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

On March 27, 2013, defendants filed a demurrer moving to dismiss
the amended complaint on other grounds. The hearings on
defendants' demurrers are currently scheduled for May 17 and June
28, respectively. On April 3, 2013, the outside members of the
board of directors and the underwriters were dismissed without
prejudice.


BANK OF NEW YORK: Ivy Assets Awaits Final OK of $210M Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ivy Asset Management LLC awaits the final approval of the $210
million settlement it entered with the New York State Attorney
General, the U.S. Department of Labor, and civil lawsuit
plaintiffs that allege losses due to the Madoff investments,
according to The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation's May 9,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Ivy Asset Management LLC or its affiliates have been named in a
number of civil lawsuits filed beginning Jan. 27, 2009 relating to
certain investment funds that allege losses due to the Madoff
investments. Ivy acted as a sub-advisor to the investment managers
of some of those funds. Plaintiffs assert various causes of action
including securities and common-law fraud. Certain of the cases
have been certified as class actions and/or assert derivative
claims on behalf of the funds. Most of the cases have been
consolidated in two actions in federal court in the Southern
District of New York, with certain cases filed in New York State
Supreme Court for New York and Nassau counties.

On Nov. 13, 2012, Ivy entered into a settlement agreement with the
New York State Attorney General, the U.S. Department of Labor, and
the civil lawsuit plaintiffs that would settle all claims for $210
million. The settlement is subject to judicial approval, which the
various courts have preliminarily given. A hearing on final
approval was held March 15, 2013; the company await the Court's
ruling.


BANK OF NEW YORK: Wins Initial OK for Medical Capital Suit Accord
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The federal court in the Central District of California
preliminarily approved a settlement wherein The Bank of New York
Mellon will make a payment of $114 million to settle claims that
arose out of its role as indenture trustee for debt issued by
affiliates of Medical Capital Corporation, according to The Bank
of New York Mellon Corporation's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013.

The Bank of New York Mellon has been named as a defendant in a
number of class actions and non-class actions brought by numerous
plaintiffs in connection with its role as indenture trustee for
debt issued by affiliates of Medical Capital Corporation. The
actions, filed in late 2009 and currently pending in federal court
in the Central District of California, allege that The Bank of New
York Mellon breached its fiduciary and contractual obligations to
the holders of the underlying securities, and seek unspecified
damages.

On Dec. 21, 2012, The Bank of New York Mellon entered into a
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs and the Federal Equity
Receiver for Medical Capital Corporation and its affiliates. Under
the terms of the settlement, The Bank of New York Mellon will make
a payment of $114 million in exchange for a complete release of
claims. The settlement was preliminarily approved on Feb. 28,
2013.


BANK OF NEW YORK: Continues to Face ERISA Violation Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation faces a lawsuit that was
consolidated for pre-trial purposes in federal court in New York
over allegations it violated the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, according to the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

BNY Mellon has also been named as a defendant in several putative
class action federal lawsuits filed on various dates in 2011 and
2012. The complaints, which assert claims including breach of
contract and ERISA violations, all allege that the prices BNY
Mellon charged for standing instruction foreign exchange
transactions executed in connection with custody services provided
by BNY Mellon were improper.

In addition, BNY Mellon has been named as a nominal defendant in
several derivative lawsuits filed 2011 and 2012 in state and
federal court in New York. BNY Mellon has also been named in a qui
tam lawsuit filed on May 22, 2012 in Massachusetts state court. To
the extent these lawsuits are pending in federal court, they have
been consolidated for pre-trial purposes in federal court in New
York.


BARRICK GOLD: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP has filed a class
action lawsuit against Barrick Gold Corporation and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 13 CIV
4123, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Barrick
between May 7, 2009 and May 23, 2013 both dates inclusive.  This
class action seeks to recover damages against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors as a result of alleged
violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Barrick securities during
the Class Period, you have until August 05, 2013 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Barrick is one of the world's largest metals mining corporations.
The Company develops and operates gold, silver, and copper mines
in the United States, Canada, South America, Australia, and
Africa.  Among Barrick's South American operations is the Pascua-
Lama Project a property under development as an open-pit mine that
straddles the border between Argentina and Chile, and is expected
to produce gold, silver, and related minerals.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and misleading statements and concealed material
information relating to the cost and time-to-production
projections for the Pascua-Lama Project.  As a result of
Defendants' false and misleading statements and omissions,
Barrick's shares traded at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period.

On May 7, 2009, prior to the markets' open, Barrick issued a press
release announcing that the Company's Pascua-Lama Project would
proceed to construction.  As part of the highlights of the
Project, Barrick stated that Pascua-Lama had a "[p]re-production
cost estimate of $2.8-$3.0 billion," that "[f]ully compliant
environmental management and monitoring plans" had been developed,
and that "[c]ommissioning [was] expected in late 2012 and
production in early 2013."

During the balance of the Class Period, Defendants continued to
provide a rosy outlook for the costs and time that the development
and completion of Pascua-Lama would require, repeatedly reassuring
investors and analysts of the Project's reasonable cost, high
profitability, and ability to drive growth for Barrick prior to
2014.  Defendants' false and misleading statements caused
Barrick's shares to close as high as $54.28 per share on April 5,
2011.

On April 10, 2013, prior to the markets' open, news outlets
reported that the Appeals Court of Copiap¢, Chile had issued an
order suspending work on the Pascua-Lama Project.  In reaction to
this news, Barrick's stock price fell $2.23 per share, or 8.3
percent, to close at $24.46 per share on volume of more than 40
million shares.  Then, on May 24, 2013, Chile's Superintendence of
the Environment issued a resolution suspending the Pascua-Lama
Project pending compliance with an environmental permit, and
imposing a fine equivalent to $16 million.  In response to this
development, trading in Barrick stock was halted.  After the
Company's shares resumed trading, they closed at $19.16 per share,
falling $0.39 per share, or 1.99% on June 10, 2013.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.


BP PLC: U.S. Investors Seek Class Action Status for Oil Spill Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Laurel Brubaker Calkins and Margaret Cronin Fisk, writing for
Bloomberg News, report that BP Plc's U.S. investors asked a
federal court to grant class action, or group, status for their
lawsuit claiming the company misled them before and after the 2010
spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

The investors, led by the New York and Ohio pension funds, sued BP
and certain officers in 2010, alleging violations of U.S.
securities laws.  The investors also claim the company publicly
proclaimed a commitment to safety improvement while internally
cutting budgets and rejecting employees' concerns about safety.

The investors are seeking permission to sue in two groups.  The
larger group, comprised primarily of institutional investors,
includes all buyers of BP's American depositary receipts from Nov.
8, 2007, to May 28, 2010.  A subgroup, claiming to represent about
900,000 individual investors, purchased BP ADRs from March 4,
2009, to April 20, 2010, the date BP's Macondo well blew out,
unleashing the largest offshore spill in U.S. history.

All the investors contend the depositary receipts "were
artificially inflated as a result of defendants' dissemination of
materially false and misleading statements and material
omissions," the investors' attorneys said in a filing on June 14
in federal court in Houston.

"All suffered losses when the truth surrounding those
misstatements and material omissions were revealed to the market
and BP's stock price declined," they said.

                           Market Value

BP shares fell about 40 percent in the weeks after the explosion,
investors said in court papers. The drop eliminated billions of
dollars in the company's market value, which hasn't fully
recovered.

Scott Dean, a spokesman for London-based BP, declined to comment
on the filing.

"It's been over three years now, and we're looking forward to a
trial in August of next year," Richard Mithoff, the Houston
attorney representing individual investors in the case, said in a
phone interview.  "We believe we'll be able to recover substantial
losses on behalf of shareholders who have suffered enormously."

The investors also sued BP's former Chief Executive Officer Tony
Hayward and Doug Suttles, ex-chief operating officer of BP's
exploration unit, over statements the men made in connection with
the spill.

Mr. Hayward allegedly misled investors about how thoroughly BP had
improved its safety practices and was prepared to handle a large
spill in ultra-deep water, according to the complaint. Both men
allegedly lied publicly about the size of the spill in order to
prop up BP's stock price, the investors claim.

                        Explosion, Sinking

Investor securities-fraud suits were among hundreds of claims
filed in U.S. courts after the explosion and sinking of the
Deepwater Horizon drilling rig off the Louisiana coastline in
April 2010.  Eleven rig workers were killed in the blast, which
sent more than 4 million barrels of oil into the Gulf.

Ellison refused in March to dismiss the bulk of the investors'
securities-fraud claims.  He previously limited participation in
the litigation to investors who bought shares on the U.S. stock
exchange.

BP has denied fraud or any lack of attention to safety in court
filings.  Investors are trying to "transform a matter involving
allegedly negligent processes into an action for securities
fraud," the company said in court papers.  "A commitment to safety
is not a guarantee that no future accidents will occur."
SEC Claim

BP agreed to pay $525 million to settle a U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission claim that the company underestimated the size
of the spill.  The company also pleaded guilty to a felony count
of obstruction of Congress related to its spill size estimate.

The plea was part of a $4 billion settlement of criminal charges
brought by the U.S. against BP over the incident.  The company
also pleaded guilty to 11 other felony counts related to the rig
workers' deaths and two misdemeanor environmental law violations.

BP is currently between phases of a different trial in federal
court in New Orleans, where another judge is weighing liability
for the spill between BP and its contractors, including Transocean
Ltd., which owned the rig, and Halliburton Co., which provided
cementing services.

Testimony in the liability phase of that trial concluded in April,
and no decision has been announced.  The second trial phase will
focus on the size of the spill, which will affect the size of the
fine BP would pay for violating the U.S. Clean Water Act.  That
phase is scheduled to begin in September before the New Orleans
judge.

The case is In Re BP Plc Securities Litigation, 4:10-md-2185, U.S.
District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston).


BROADWIND ENERGY: Final Hearing on Securities Suit Accord in June
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, set June 27, 2013 final approval
hearing for a settlement reached in a securities suit filed
against Broadwind Energy, Inc., according to the company's May 9,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On February 11, 2011, a putative class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division (the "Court"), against the Company and
certain of its current or former officers and directors. The
lawsuit was purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between March 17, 2009 and August 9, 2010.

A lead plaintiff was appointed and an amended complaint was filed
on September 13, 2011. The amended complaint named as additional
defendants certain of the Company's current and former directors,
certain Tontine entities, and Jeffrey Gendell, a principal of
Tontine.

The complaint sought to allege that the defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and/or Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by issuing or causing to
be issued a series of allegedly false and/or misleading statements
concerning the Company's financial results, operations, and
prospects, including with respect to the January 2010 secondary
public offering of the Company's common stock.

The plaintiffs alleged that the Company's statements were false
and misleading because, among other things, the Company's reported
financial results during the class period allegedly violated
generally accepted accounting principles because they failed to
reflect the impairment of goodwill and other intangible assets,
and the Company allegedly failed to disclose known trends and
other information regarding certain customer relationships at Brad
Foote. In support of their claims, the plaintiffs relied in part
upon six alleged confidential informants, all of whom are alleged
to be former employees of the Company.

On November 18, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. On
April 19, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Company's motion. The Court dismissed all claims with prejudice
against each of the named current and former officers except for
J. Cameron Drecoll and held that the plaintiffs had failed to
state a claim for any alleged misstatements made after March 19,
2010. In addition, the Court dismissed all claims with prejudice
against the named Tontine entities and Mr. Gendell. The Court
denied the motion with respect to certain of the claims asserted
against the Company and Mr. Drecoll. The Company filed its answer
and affirmative defenses on May 21, 2012. The plaintiffs' class
certification was filed on June 22, 2012, and the parties agreed
to a briefing schedule.

The parties participated in a mediation session on August 20,
2012, and have reached agreement on a settlement of the matter in
the amount of $3,915,000, which is payable by the Company's
insurance carrier. The Court preliminarily approved the settlement
on March 14, 2013.


BROADWIND ENERGY: Tontine Defendants Seek Indemnification
---------------------------------------------------------
Broadwind Energy, Inc. received a request from Tontine defendants
for indemnification in derivative suits and a class action
lawsuit, according to Broadwind Energy, Inc.'s May 9, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Between February 15, 2011 and March 30, 2011, three putative
shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed in the Court against
certain of the Company's current and former officers and
directors, and certain Tontine entities, seeking to challenge
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and
unjust enrichment, including in connection with the January 2010
secondary public offering of the Company's common stock.

One of the lawsuits also alleged that certain directors violated
Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act in connection with
the Company's Proxy Statement for its 2010 Annual Meeting of
Stockholders. Two of the matters pending in the federal court were
subsequently consolidated, and on May 15, 2012, the Court granted
the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated cases and also
entered an order dismissing the third case.

The Company received a request from the Tontine defendants for
indemnification in the derivative suits and the class action
lawsuit from Tontine and/or Mr. Jeffrey Gendell pursuant to
various agreements related to shares owned by Tontine. The Company
maintains directors and officers liability insurance; however, the
costs of indemnification for Mr. Gendell and/or Tontine would not
be covered by any Company insurance policy.

The Company has entered into an agreement with Tontine that
provides, among other things, for a settlement of these
indemnification claims and related matters for a payment of
$495,000,000. Because of the preliminary nature of these matters,
the Company is not able to estimate a loss or range of loss, if
any, that may be incurred in connection with these matters at this
time.


CHA HOLLYWOOD: 9th Cir. Says Removal of Class Action Is Fair
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that federal court removal was
proper for a wage-and-hour class action against CHA Hollywood
Medical Center, the 9th Circuit ruled June 27, 2013, finding that
belated discovery excused an otherwise untimely motion.


CHEVRON USA: Receives Favorable Ruling From Calif. Appeals Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff D. Gorman at Courthouse News Service reports that Chevron
does not violate credit card laws when it asks gasoline customers
for their ZIP codes, a California appeals court ruled.

Under the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971, sellers cannot
condition facilitating credit-card transactions on forcing
customers to provide personal information.

John Flores III and other plaintiffs filed a class action against
Chevron USA and other oil companies two weeks after the California
Supreme Court ruled in February 2011 that ZIP codes constituted
personal information under the act.  But the governor signed an
amendment to the act that October, allowing gas companies to
require the ZIP codes "solely for the prevention of fraud, theft
or identity theft."

Chevron asserted that it reduced fraud by 80 percent when it began
to require the ZIP codes.  The company also does not use the
information for marketing purposes.

A Los Angeles judge ruled in Chevron's favor, and the Los Angeles-
based Second Appellate District affirmed.

"The undisputed facts show that Chevron requires ZIP codes only in
pay-at-the-pump transactions at locations where there is a high
risk of fraud, uses the information only to prevent fraud, and
purges the information shortly after the credit card transactions
are reconciled," Justice Frances Rothschild wrote for the court.

"We agree with the trial court that Chevron's conduct does not
violate the Act, because the personal identification information
is required for a special purpose incidental but related to the
individual credit card transaction, namely the purpose of ensuring
that the individual credit card transaction is not fraudulent,"
Rothschild added.


CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Wins Final OK of Stock Suit Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Placer County Superior Court granted final approval to a
settlement in the suit In re SureWest Communications Shareholder
Litigation of which Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. is
a defendant, according to the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Prior to the completion of the SureWest Merger on July 2, 2012,
six putative class action lawsuits were filed by alleged SureWest
shareholders challenging the Company's proposed merger with
SureWest in which the Company, WH Acquisition Corp. and WH
Acquisition II Corp., SureWest and members of the SureWest board
of directors have been named as defendants.

Five shareholder actions were filed in the Superior Court of
California, Placer County, and one shareholder action was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California.  The actions are called Needles v. SureWest
Communications, et al., filed February 17, 2012, Errecart v.
Oldham, et al., filed February 24, 2012, Springer v. SureWest
Communications, et al., filed March 9, 2012, Aievoli v. Oldham, et
al., filed March 15, 2012, and Waterbury v. SureWest
Communications, et al., filed March 26, 2012, and the federal
action is called Broering v. Oldham, et al., filed April 18, 2012.

The actions generally allege, among other things, that each member
of the SureWest board of directors breached fiduciary duties to
SureWest and its shareholders by authorizing the sale of SureWest
to the Company for consideration that allegedly was unfair to the
SureWest shareholders and agreed to terms that allegedly unduly
restrict other bidders from making a competing offer.  The
complaints also allege that the Company and SureWest aided and
abetted the breaches of fiduciary duties allegedly committed by
the members of the SureWest board of directors.

The Broering complaint also alleges, among other things, that the
joint proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC on March 28,
2012 did not make sufficient disclosures regarding the merger,
that SureWest's board should have appointed an independent
committee to negotiate the transaction and that SureWest should
have gone back to another bidder to create a competitive bid
process.

The lawsuits seek equitable relief, including an order to prevent
the defendants from consummating the merger on the agreed-upon
terms and/or an award of unspecified monetary damages.

On March 14, 2012, the Placer County Superior Court entered an
order consolidating the Needles, Errecart and Springer actions
into a single action under the caption In re SureWest
Communications Shareholder Litigation.  Under the terms of this
order, all cases subsequently filed in the Superior Court for the
State of California, County of Placer, that relate to the same
subject matter and involve similar questions of law or fact were
to be consolidated with these cases as well.  This included the
Aievoli and Waterbury cases.

On April 10, 2012, the plaintiff in Waterbury filed a request for
voluntary dismissal of her complaint without prejudice.  On May
18, 2012, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the federal Court
entered an order staying the Broering action for 90 days.  The
federal Court subsequently extended the stay of the Broering
action until June 1, 2013.  On June 1, 2012, the parties entered
into a proposed settlement of all of the shareholder actions
without any admission of liability by the Company or the other
defendants.

Pursuant to the proposed settlement, SureWest agreed to make, and
subsequently made, certain additional disclosures in a Current
Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC in advance of the special
meeting of SureWest shareholders held on June 12, 2012.  The
proposed settlement also provided that plaintiffs' counsel
collectively are to receive attorneys' fees of $0.525 million, to
be paid by the Company and SureWest and its insurer.

On December 20, 2012, the court issued a ruling preliminarily
approving the proposed settlement.  Notice of the proposed
settlement was thereafter given to the SureWest shareholders.

Eight shareholders representing approximately 4,500 shares of
SureWest stock opted-out of the settlement class.  A final hearing
on the proposed settlement was held before the court on March 28,
2013.  On April 5, 2013, the court issued a final judgment for
$0.525 million, of which the Company is to pay approximately $0.2
million, with the balance to be paid by SureWest and its insurer.

In accordance with the terms of the final judgment, on April 17,
2013 the Company disbursed its portion of the settlement. Pursuant
to the settlement and the terms of the final judgment, the
consolidated state court actions are now concluded, and the claims
of all shareholders who did not opt-out of the settlement have
been released and discharged.  In accordance with the settlement,
the Broering action pending in federal court was voluntarily
dismissed on April 16, 2013.


CONSTELLIUM HOLDCO: Defends Suit by Retirees and USW vs. Unit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Constellium Holdco B.V. is defending a subsidiary against a class
action lawsuit brought by retirees and United Steelworkers union,
according to the Company's May 13, 2013, Form F-1 filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On February 20, 2013, five retirees of Constellium Rolled
Products-Ravenswood LLC and the United Steelworkers union filed a
class action lawsuit against Constellium Rolled Products-
Ravenswood LLC in a federal district court in West Virginia,
alleging that Ravenswood improperly modified retiree health
benefits.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that Constellium
Rolled Products-Ravenswood LLC was obligated to provide retirees
with health benefits throughout their retirement at no cost, and
that the Company improperly capped, through changes that went into
effect in January 2013, the amount it would pay annually toward
those benefits.  In 2013, the caps will result in additional costs
of $5 per month for approximately 1,800 retiree health plan
participants.  The Company believes that these claims are
unfounded, and that Constellium Rolled Products-Ravenswood LLC had
a legal and contractual right to make the applicable
modifications.

Constellium Holdco B.V. -- http://www.constellium.com/-- is a
global leader in the development, manufacture and sale of a broad
range of highly engineered, value-added specialty plate, coil,
sheet and extruded aluminum products to the aerospace, packaging,
automotive, other transportation and industrial end-markets.  The
Company is headquartered in Schiphol-Rijk, The Netherlands.


COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Settles BofA Home Loan Class Action for $100MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reports that Countrywide Home
Loans Inc. will pay $100 million to settle a class action alleging
that the Bank of America Corp.-owned lender deceptively lured
consumers into buying loans with higher interest rates than
originally promised, according to a June 13 filing in California
federal court.

Plaintiff Jay J. Ralston alleged that Countrywide and its
correspondent lenders, including Mortgage Investors Group Inc.,
engaged in a "campaign of deceptive conduct and concealment" in
which some consumers lost their homes through foreclosure,
according to court documents.

The class consists of consumers who -- between Jan. 24, 2004, and
the date of the settlement agreement -- obtained a loan that was
originated by MIG or another Countrywide correspondent lender and
later sold to Countrywide.  Roughly 75,000 loans are within the
scope of the class, Countrywide said, according to the June 13
motion.

Plaintiffs' attorney Jeffrey K. Berns, Esq. --
jberns@bernsweiss.com -- of Berns Weiss LLP said on June 14 that
they are very happy with the proposed settlement, which he asked
U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel to preliminarily approve the day
before.

"We're pleased we could get a great resolution for the class," he
said.  "Bank of America stepped it up and tried to do the right
thing for these people, even though the loans originated
elsewhere."

Mr. Ralston, a resident of San Jose, Calif., refinanced his
existing home loan and entered into an option adjustable rate
mortgage loan agreement with MIG in July 2005, according to court
documents.

Mr. Ralston filed suit in January 2008, claiming the loan
documents were deceptive.  The class action, which was amended
multiple times, alleged unlawful and fraudulent business
practices, breach of contract and other claims on behalf of MIG,
Countrywide, Bank of America and Bank of New York, which was the
trustee on Ralston's loan.

Mr. Ralston argued that the lenders sold option adjustable rate
mortgage loans on the promise of low fixed-interest rates, when in
reality the loans were designed to cause negative amortization, or
interest charges that were greater than the loan payments.
Customers allegedly faced hefty penalties if they tried to
extricate themselves from the loans.

MIG countered that it clearly disclosed to Mr. Ralston that the
loan had different payment options, some of which could result in
his principal loan balance growing, according to court filings.

A California federal judge certified the class in March 2012.

The parties reached the proposed settlement after extensive
negotiations between May 25, 2012, and Apr. 16, 2013, according to
the June 13 motion.  The negotiations included three day-long
sessions and multiple telephone conferences with a mediator.

Under the terms of the proposed agreement, Countrywide will pay
$99,650,000 and MIG will pay $500,000, with Countrywide disbursing
$225,000 of the settlement to cover administration costs.  Class
members will receive payments ranging from $250 to roughly $2,700,
court filings said.

Class counsel will request costs and expenses of up to about
$250,000, according to the June 13 motion.

Attorneys for MIG, Countrywide, Bank of America and Bank of New
York didn't immediately respond on June 14 to requests for
comment.

The plaintiffs are represented by Jennie Lee Anderson --
jennie@andrusanderson.com -- Lori E. Andrus --
lori@andrusanderson.com -- and Jessica Moy of Andrus Anderson LLP;
Jeffrey K. Berns of Berns Weiss LLP; and Lee A. Weiss.

MIG is represented by Ronald Paul Reynolds and Peter John Marshall
-- pmarshall@pldlawyers.com -- of Palmer Lombardi & Donohue LLP.

Countrywide is represented by Brooks Russell Brown, Esq. --
bbrown@goodwinprocter.com -- Matthew S. Sheldon, Esq., --
msheldon@goodwinprocter.com -- Sabrina M. Rose-Smith, Esq. --
srosesmith@goodwinprocter.com -- Steven A. Ellis, Esq. --
sellis@goodwinprocter.com -- and Thomas M. Hefferon, Esq., --
thefferon@goodwinprocter.com -- of Goodwin Procter LLP; and Robert
Bader, Esq.

Bank of America is represented by Wendy M. Garbers, Esq. --
wgarbers@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Bank of New York is represented by Brooks Russell Brown, Esq., of
Goodwin Procter LLP; and Robert Bader.

The case is Jay J. Ralston et al. v Mortgage Investors Group Inc.
et al., case number 5:08-cv-00536, in the U.S. District Court for
the California Northern District, San Jose.


CROSS COUNTRY: Mediation in Suit for Travelling Employees Fail
--------------------------------------------------------------
A mediation for a suit filed against a subsidiary of Cross Country
Healthcare, Inc., formerly known as CC Staffing, Inc., was
unsuccessful, according to the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On December 4, 2012, the Company's subsidiary, CC Staffing, Inc.
(now known as Travel Staff, LLC) became the subject of a purported
class action lawsuit (Alice Ogues, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. CC Staffing, Inc., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants) filed
in the United States District Court, Northern District of
California.

Plaintiff alleges that travelling employees were denied meal
periods and rest breaks, that they should have been paid overtime
on reimbursement amounts, and that they are entitled to associated
penalties. The Company attended a mediation in April 2013 that was
unsuccessful. At this early stage, the Company is unable to
determine its potential exposure, if any, and intends to
vigorously defend this matter.


DORCHESTER MINERALS: Lawsuit Over Royalty Settled, Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Dorchester Minerals Operating LP paid the settlement in a suit
alleging underpayment of royalty on properties owned and operated
in Texas County, Oklahoma, and the litigation was dismissed,
according to Dorchester Minerals, L.P.'s May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On January 27, 2006, plaintiff Rapp sued Dorchester Minerals
Operating LP for underpayment of royalty on properties owned and
operated in Texas County, Oklahoma.  Plaintiff sought
certification of a class action.  A $500,000 reserve was recorded
in Net Profits Revenues on the financial statements in the first
quarter of 2012.

On October 18, 2012, the District Court approved a class
settlement between the parties in the amount of $500,000 plus
immaterial future royalty amounts on fuel gas.  During December
2012, Dorchester Minerals Operating LP paid the settlement amount
and the litigation was dismissed.


ELI LILLY: Lawsuits Filed Over Byetta Side Effects
--------------------------------------------------
Injury Lawyer News reports that Merck & Co., the manufacturer of
Januvia, and Amylin, Eli Lilly and Bristol-Myers Squibb, the
manufacturers of Byetta, have respectively been named in Byetta &
Januvia lawsuits.

Januvia (sitagliptin phosphate) and Byetta (exenatide) are two
popular type-2 diabetes medications.  Byetta was approved in 2005
and is a glucagon-like peptide-1 agonist (GLP-1 agonist), while
Januvia, a DPP-4 inhibitor, first received FDA approval in 2006.
Since their approvals, both drugs have reached blockbuster status,
raking in millions in profits.  But both drugs have also been
linked to serious, life-threatening side effects.

On April 5, 2013, a group of plaintiffs filed a petition for
multidistrict litigation (MDL) to be established for cases filed
in federal courts where diabetes drugs like Januvia and Byetta are
alleged to have caused pancreatic cancer and related injuries.
The motion suggests the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California as an appropriate location for the MDL,
where many Januvia and Byetta lawsuits are already pending.  MDL
which would join multiple Byetta, Victoza, Janumet, and Januvia
lawsuit complaints into one court for the purpose of streamlining
the pre-trial process, facilitating settlement negotiation, and/or
helping to bring the cases to trial in an expedited fashion.  Over
50 such cases have been filed in federal courts across the
country, with the number expected to grow.
Side effects of Januvia and Byetta

Both diabetes medications have a long list of general and minor
side effects, but legal complaints typically allege the most
serious of Byetta and Januvia side effects.

Side effects most often referenced in Januvia lawsuits include:

    Kidney failure, sometime severe enough to require dialysis

    Severely low blood sugar, leading to confusion, dizziness,
drowsiness, fast heart beat, headache, hunger, irritability, a
jittery sensation, sweating, and weakness

    Severe allergic reaction

    Pancreatitis, or inflammation of the pancreas, that may be
severe enough to cause death

    Pancreatic cancer

    Thyroid cancer

Byetta lawsuit plaintiffs commonly cite:

    Acute necrotizing pancreatitis

    Kidney (renal) damage or failure

    Severe allergic reactions

    Pancreatic cancer

    Thyroid cancer

Byetta and Januvia lawsuit allegations

Dangerous drug lawsuits usually have certain elements in common;
plaintiffs claim to have experienced similar injuries, and make
similar allegations about the drug manufacturer's liability and
negligence in publicizing the drug's risks.  Merck & Co.
manufactures Januvia, while Amylin Pharmaceuticals and Eli Lilly
and Company, as well as Bristol-Myers Squibb, which purchased
Amylin for approximately $5.3 billion in 2012, are the targets of
Byetta complaints.

Litigation for both diabetes medications makes similar
allegations, including:

    Failure to warn of severe side effects
    Negligent manufacturing and marketing
    Fraud
    Fraudulent concealment
    Breach of implied warranty
    Breach of express warranty
    Negligent misrepresentation
    Manufacturing defect

Januvia and Byetta class action & multidistrict litigation

Januvia and Byetta lawsuits have been filed around the United
States, and many plaintiffs are waiting for a possible next step:
consolidation.  Two of the most common forms of consolidated
litigation are class action lawsuits and multidistrict litigation
(MDL).

Class action lawsuits are uncommon in dangerous drug litigation,
including cases involving Januvia and Byetta.  In a class action
lawsuit, all plaintiffs are grouped into one, and one or several
individuals represent the entire class.  This means that if the
representatives win their case, all plaintiffs win; any settlement
or jury verdict is divided among the parties.  Likewise, if a
representative loses his or her case, all plaintiffs lose.
Because of this all-or-nothing outcome, cases -- complaints,
complications, allegations, and other details -- must be virtually
identical to one another.

In multidistrict litigation (MDL), plaintiffs from around the
nation have their cases centralized into one court for pre-trial
procedures, such as discovery. Consolidation allows for
streamlined processes and helps avoid duplicate rulings from
different judges.  It also gives plaintiffs the opportunity to
pool their resources, and work together to build stronger cases.
However, unlike a class action lawsuit, multidistrict litigation
allows each plaintiff to retain his or her individual rights --
the right to negotiate a settlement, go to trial, and make other
decisions.

Additionally, after pretrial preparations are complete, each MDL
plaintiff is remanded back to his or her original court of filing
for trial.  Each plaintiff proceeds with his or her own case, in
an individual trial.  Because MDLs allow for plaintiff autonomy,
lawyers for plaintiffs who have filed dangerous drug lawsuits
often petition the court for multidistrict litigation.

Additionally, multicounty litigation (MCL) and mass torts are
common; they work just like an MDL, but are consolidated on a
state level.

Byetta and Januvia lawsuit settlements

For most drug lawsuits, settlement negotiations take place on a
case-by-case basis and spike before MDL trials are slated to
begin.  Bellwether trials -- the first cases tried in the MDL --
are meant to establish the relative strength of the cases and the
likely reactions of juries to the allegations and evidence.  If a
case resolves in favor of the plaintiff, pharmaceutical companies
may be looking at significant damages payouts, in some cases
reaching the hundreds of millions of dollars.

To date, Januvia and Byetta defendants -- Merck, Amylin, Eli Lilly
and Bristol-Myers Squibb -- have not made any significant, public
offers to settle.  However, with MDL looming on the horizon, it is
possible that Januvia and Byetta lawsuit settlements may be
negotiated in the future.

A Byetta or Januvia lawyer can help

A product liability attorney can help fight for your right to
compensation and damages if you have been injured by the side
effects of diabetes drugs like Januvia and Byetta.  For many,
taking these medications to control their blood sugar has led to a
lifetime of complications -- kidney failure, life-threatening
pancreatitis, thyroid cancer, pancreatic cancer, and more.

No settlement or jury award can right these wrongs, but an
experienced attorney can help win compensation you for your pain
and suffering, lost wages, medical costs and other damages
suffered. Some of the most common requests for damages in a Byetta
or Januvia lawsuit include:

    Medical treatment costs
    Long-term medical care expenses
    Lost wages
    Diminished earning capacity
    Pain and suffering
    Emotional anguish
    Permanent injury or disability


EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Defends Four Wage and Hour Suits vs. Units
-------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency Medical Services Corporation is defending its
subsidiaries against four wage and hour class action lawsuits in
California, according to the Company's May 13, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Four different lawsuits purporting to be class actions have been
filed against American Medical Response, Inc. ("AMR"), the
Company's medical transportation services segment, and certain
subsidiaries in California alleging violations of California wage
and hour laws.  On April 16, 2008, Lori Bartoni commenced a
lawsuit in the Superior Court for the State of California, County
of Alameda; on July 8, 2008, Vaughn Banta filed a lawsuit in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles;
on January 22, 2009, Laura Karapetian filed a lawsuit in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
and on March 11, 2010, Melanie Aguilar filed a lawsuit in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.
The Banta, Aguilar and Karapetian cases have been coordinated in
the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los
Angeles.

At the present time, courts have not certified classes in any of
these cases.  The Plaintiffs allege principally that the AMR
entities failed to pay overtime charges pursuant to California
law, and failed to provide required meal breaks, rest breaks or
pay premium compensation for missed breaks.  The Plaintiffs are
seeking to certify the classes and are seeking lost wages,
punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other sanctions permitted
under California law for violations of wage hour laws.  The
Company says it is unable at this time to estimate the amount of
potential damages, if any.

Founded in 2005, Emergency Medical Services Corporation (EMSC) --
http://www.emsc.net/-- is a provider of emergency medical
services in the United States, including ambulance services.  The
Company is headquartered in Greenwood Village, Colorado.


EPICOR SOFTWARE: Trial in Merger-Related Suit Set for April 2014
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial date of a consolidated merger-related lawsuit has been
continued to April 28, 2014, according to Epicor Software
Corporation's May 13, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

On March 25, 2011 ("Inception"), Eagle Parent, Inc. ("Eagle") was
formed under Delaware law at the direction of funds advised by
Apax Partners, L.P. and Apax Partners, LLP, together referred to
as "Apax", for the purpose of acquiring Activant Group Inc.
("AGI"), the parent company of Activant Solutions Inc., the
Predecessor for reporting purposes, (the "Predecessor" or
"Activant"), and Epicor Software Corporation ("Legacy Epicor").
On April 4, 2011, Eagle entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with AGI, Activant and certain other parties pursuant to
which Eagle agreed to acquire AGI and Activant.  Also on April 4,
2011, Eagle entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with
Legacy Epicor and certain other parties, pursuant to which Eagle
agreed to acquire Legacy Epicor.  On May 16, 2011, Eagle
consummated the acquisitions of AGI, Activant and Legacy Epicor,
following which, Legacy Epicor, AGI and Activant became wholly-
owned subsidiaries of Eagle.  These acquisitions and the related
transactions are referred to collectively as the "Acquisition" or
"Acquisitions."  Prior to May 16, 2011, Eagle did not engage in
any business except for activities related to its formation, the
Acquisitions and arranging the related financing.  Prior to the
Acquisitions, there were no related party relationships between
Eagle and AGI, Activant, or Legacy Epicor.

In connection with the announcement of the proposed acquisition of
Legacy Epicor by funds advised by Apax in April 2011, four
putative stockholder class action lawsuits were filed in the
Superior Court of California, Orange County, and two such suits
were filed in Delaware Chancery Court.  The actions filed in
California were entitled Kline v. Epicor Software Corp. et al.,
(filed April 6, 2011); Tola v. Epicor Software Corp. et al.,
(filed April 8, 2011); Watt v. Epicor Software Corp. et al.,
(filed April 11, 2011), and Frazer v. Epicor Software et al.,
(filed April 15, 2011).  The actions filed in Delaware were
entitled Field Family Trust Co. v. Epicor Software Corp. et al.,
(filed April 12, 2011) and Hull v. Klaus et al., (filed April 22,
2011).  Amended complaints were filed in the Tola and Field Family
Trust actions on April 13, 2011, and April 14, 2011, respectively.
Plaintiff Kline dismissed his lawsuit on April 18, 2011, and
shortly thereafter filed an action in federal district court.
Kline then dismissed his federal lawsuit on July 22, 2011.

The state court lawsuits alleged that the Legacy Epicor directors
breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and due care, among
others, by seeking to complete the sale of Legacy Epicor to funds
advised by Apax through an allegedly unfair process and for an
unfair price and by omitting material information from the
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 that
Legacy Epicor filed on April 11, 2011, with the SEC.  The
complaints also alleged that Legacy Epicor, Apax Partners, L.P.
and Element Merger Sub, Inc. aided and abetted the directors in
the alleged breach of fiduciary duties.  The plaintiffs sought
certification as a class and relief that included, among other
things, an order enjoining the tender offer and merger, rescission
of the merger, and payment of plaintiff's attorneys' fees and
costs.  On April 25, 2011, plaintiff Hull filed a motion in
Delaware Chancery Court for a preliminary injunction seeking to
enjoin the parties from taking any action to consummate the
transaction.  On April 28, 2011, plaintiff Hull withdrew this
motion.  On December 30, 2011, Hull dismissed his Delaware
lawsuit.

On May 2, 2011, after engaging in discovery, the plaintiffs
advised that they did not intend to seek injunctive relief in
connection with the merger, but would instead file an amended
complaint seeking damages in California Superior Court following
the consummation of the tender offer.  On May 11, 2011, the
Superior Court for the County of Orange entered an Order
consolidating the Tola, Watt, and Frazer cases pursuant to a joint
stipulation of the parties.  The Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Complaint on September 1, 2011, which made essentially the same
claims as the original complaints.  Plaintiffs Kline and Field
Family Trust have both joined in the amended complaint.  The
Company filed a demurrer (motion to dismiss) to this amended
complaint on September 29, 2011.  The demurrers were heard on
December 12, 2011, and the Court overruled them.  The Defendants
answered the Complaint on December 22, 2011.  On June 22, 2012,
the court granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification
and dismissed Mr. Hackworth as a defendant.

After the parties had completed fact discovery and begun expert
discovery, the plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint to
add two new defendants, the Company's former chief financial
officer and the Company's former financial advisor, Moelis &
Company.  On February 22, 2013, the Court granted the plaintiffs
leave, and the plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint was filed.  On
April 29, 2013, the Court overruled demurrers by the new
defendants to the Third Amended Complaint.

In light of the amendment of the complaint and the addition of the
two new parties, the prior case schedule and trial date have been
amended.  Pursuant to a stipulation from the parties, the Court
has continued the trial date to April 28, 2014.

The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and will
vigorously defend against the claims.  The Company cannot,
however, predict the outcome of litigation.  Nor can the Company
currently estimate a reasonably possible range of loss for this
action.

Headquartered in Dublin, California, Epicor Software Corporation
is global provider of enterprise application software and services
focused on small and mid-sized companies and the divisions and
subsidiaries of Global 1000 enterprises.  The Company provides
industry-specific solutions to the manufacturing, distribution,
retail, services and hospitality sectors.


EXXONMOBIL CORP: Baton Rouge Residents File Leak Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren McGaughy, NOLA.com, reports that a group of Baton Rouge
residents filed a class action lawsuit against ExxonMobil Corp.
and its subsidiaries on June 14, after a substantial chemical leak
last year.  The homeowners and residents claim the incident, as
well as other accidents at the sprawling facilities just north of
the Capitol, is tantamount to gross negligence, fraud and
conspiracy.

The 17 residents who filed the lawsuit live in Standard Heights,
the neighborhood about two miles north of the Capitol and directly
adjacent to the ExxonMobil refinery and chemical plant.

In June 2012, the ExxonMobil chemical plant reported a leak of
more than 30,000 pounds of naptha, a light hydrocarbon mixture
similar to gasoline with a high concentration of the cancer-
causing chemical benzene.

The plaintiffs say this leak, as well as other incidents at the
plant and refinery, have resulted in damaged property, sickness
and emotional stress.  Specifically, they mention a 2012 EPA
report that detailed problems with mechanical integrity and
emergency procedures at the facilities.

Lana Venable, Public & Government Affairs Advisor at ExxonMobil
Baton Rouge, said the company had not received formal notice of
the suit and was unable to comment on its contents.

"ExxonMobil is committed to the highest standards of safety,
health and environmental care, and we share our community's desire
for clean air and water," Ms. Venable added.  "The complex
experienced its best-ever safety performance in 2012 and reduced
local incidents with reportable quantity exceedences over the last
five years by 86 percent at the refinery and by 47 percent at the
chemical plant."

The plaintiffs are seeking damages for "gross negligence" and
"fraud and conspiracy."  Parties interested in joining the class
action should call Smith Stag, LLC at (504) 593-9600.


FACEBOOK INC: Seeks Dismissal of Robbins Geller's Derivative Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Cohen, writing for AllFacebook, reports that Facebook
requested in a filing with Delaware's Court of Chancery that the
derivative suit filed by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd be thrown
out due to a conflict of interest, but its argument may stand on
shaky ground.

Thomson Reuters News & Insight reported that the law firm was one
of the bidders to lead a class-action lawsuit by investors related
to Facebook's initial public offering, and, as such, it should not
be able to sue the company.

According to Thomson Reuters, the filing read:

"Indeed, they now claim as an injury to Facebook the costs and
damages in class-action litigation that their own counsel
instigated."

Robbins Geller Partner Sam Rudman denied a conflict of interest,
telling Thomson Reuters:

"To the extent their argument is based on the fact that we were
counsel to plaintiffs in the securities class action, we have
withdrawn as counsel in that case."

Experts contacted by Thomson Reuters seemed to feel that
Facebook's motion to dismiss was shaky, with Columbia Law School
Prof. John Coffee saying that most courts have found similar
conflict-of-interest accusations to be "more nominal than real,"
and adding:

"I'm not saying there couldn't be conflict, but if all you have is
a theoretical conflict, the courts have not been persuaded.  This
used to pop up more, but now firms have become more specialized,
and you don't usually see the major securities firms bringing
derivative actions."

University of Connecticut School of Law Prof. Alexandra Lahav told
Thomson Reuters Robbins Geller's role in the derivative action
would have to be materially adverse to its former class-action
clients for it to be considered a conflict of interest, adding:

"Their substantive position is the same regardless of whether they
represent the shareholders or the shareholders derivatively.  The
only question ought to be, 'Is this a firm that can do a good job
representing these shareholders derivatively?,' which shouldn't
hinge on a technicality."


FAT COW: Employees File Wage Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------
Amber Ryland, writing for Radar Online, reports that Gordon Ramsay
is in the middle of his very own Kitchen Nightmare!

The famed chef had a class action lawsuit thrown his way on
June 13 when current and former employees of his Fat Cow
restaurant filed with the Los Angeles Superior Court claiming
failure to pay minimum wage for hours worked, failure to provide
meal periods, failure to pay overtime wages and more,
RadarOnline.com is exclusively reporting.

Jennifer Becerra, Montinique Dever, Andrea Bourke and Lauren Benge
stand as the plaintiffs who filed on behalf of themselves and all
hourly, non-exempt current and former employees.

"During the Class Period, Defendants have: (1) required Class
Members to work through their meal and rest periods without paying
compensation for missed meal and rest breaks; (2) failed to pay
Class Members minimum wages for all hours worked; (3) failed to
pay Class Members premium compensation for all overtime hours
worked; (4) failed to pay Class Members all wages due at
termination and/or resignation," the documents state.

"(5) failed to maintain and provide Class Members with proper
documentation concerning their hours worked and their
compensation; (6) converted the property of the Class Members; and
(7) committed unfair business practices in an effort to increase
profits and to gain an unfair business advantages at the expense
of the Class Members and the public."

The Fat Cow is a Ramsay restaurant located in Los Angeles' famed
Grove outdoor shopping center and is owned by defendants The Fat
Cow LLC, FCLA LP and Gordon Ramsay Los Angeles LP.

Most of the plaintiffs were employed as servers or baristas
sometime between 2012 and March 2013.

Plaintiffs are seeking a jury trial and are asking for "an award
of economic damages according to proof on all applicable causes of
action."

A spokesperson for Gordon Ramsay exclusively tells Radar, "We are
aware there was a problem with previous management which has since
been changed, but this is totally unacceptable if any truth to
it."


FORECLOSURE PROFESSIONALS: Faces Class Action Over Running Scam
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Foreclosure Professionals et
al. run an advance fee foreclosure scam, a class action claims in
Superior Court.

Here are the defendants in the foreclosure class action:
Foreclosure Professionals Inc., Foreclosure Counseling Inc., Legal
Foreclosure Services Inc., Edward Anguiano, Dayna Goldsberry, Gary
Stephen Livington, Rodney Joe Baronian, and Joseph Boyd.


GAWKER MEDIA: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Gawker Media is the latest to
face a class action accusing it of violating labor laws by
underpaying interns, in Federal Court.


GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces Class Action Over Diet Supplements
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nick Divito at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
class action claims that reality TV personality Kendra Wilkinson
pushes General Nutrition Corp. fat-reducing diet supplements that
don't work.

Wilkinson, also known as one of Hugh Hefner's many former
girlfriends, hawks Abdominal Cuts supplements for co-defendants
Corr-Jensen Labs, General Nutrition Corp. and General Nutrition
Centers, lead plaintiff Adam Karhu says in the complaint.

Karhu claims the defendants push Abdominal Cuts aka Ab Cuts with
false claims that it targets fat in the midsection and thighs, and
promises a "3.1 percent reduction in body fat percentage," "lean
tissue enhancement," and "amplified metabolism."

"Each of these representations is false and misleading," Karhu
says in the complaint.

It continues: "Ab Cuts is ineffective for weight control and the
reduction of fat in the abdominal, hip and thigh areas because
studies show that the active ingredient in Ab Cuts, Conjugated
Linoleic Acid ('CLA') does not reduce body fat mass or sagittal
abdominal diameter and does not cause weight loss."

CLA is a fatty acid found in animal products.  Sagittal abdominal
diameter is the distance from the small of the back to the upper
abdomen.

"Defendants market Ab Cuts through a multimedia advertising
campaign featuring reality TV star Kendra Wilkinson, whose image
adorns nearly every advertisement for the product," the complaint
states.  "She also solicits sales of the products through her
Facebook account, Twitter account, through appearances at GNC
stores and through frequent paid appearances in celebrity
magazines including Life & Style, Reality Weekly Magazine and OK!
Magazine.

On the official Ab Cuts website, https://revolutionlifestyle.com,
Ab Cuts is touted as a healthy supplement that can 'assist with
body-fat reduction (particularly in the abdominal area), healthy
metabolism, antioxidant supply and anti-inflammatory assistance.
'Each of these representations is false and misleading."

Karhu adds: "Ab Cuts does not support fat loss or weight loss, and
has never been clinically tested to reduce fat around the belly,
hips and butt.  Not only is Ab Cuts ineffective, it is also
unsafe," because CLA "increases the risk of type II diabetes,
hypertension and cardiovascular disease."

Wilkinson starred in the reality television series "The Girls Next
Door," which from 2005 through 2009 chronicled the lives of three
of Hefner's girlfriends.

She then starred in a spin-off series, "Kendra," which focused on
her life after leaving the Playboy Mansion.

Karhu seeks class damages for violations of the Magnuson Moss
Warranty Act, breach of express and implied warranty, unjust
enrichment and consumer law violations.

He is represented by Joseph Marchese,Esq. -- jmarchese@bursor.com
-- with Bursor & Fisher.


GMX RESOURCES: Bids to Dismiss Securities Suit Remain Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit in Oklahoma
remain pending, according to GMX Resources Inc.'s May 13, 2013,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

A putative class action lawsuit was filed by the Northumberland
County Retirement System and Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement
System (collectively, the "Northumberland Plaintiffs") in the
District Court in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, purportedly on
March 10, 2011, against the Company and certain of its officers
along with certain underwriters of the Company's July 2008, May
2009 and October 2009 public offerings.  Discovery requests and
summons were filed and issued in late April 2011.  The complaint
alleges that the registration statement and the prospectuses for
the offerings contained material misstatements and omissions and
seeks damages under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 of an unspecified equitable relief.  The Defendants
removed the case to federal court on May 12, 2011, and filed
motions to dismiss on June 20, 2011.  The Plaintiffs filed a
motion to remand the case to state court on June 10, 2011, and the
Defendants filed an opposition to that motion.  By order dated
November 16, 2011, the court denied the Plaintiffs' motion to
remand.  The Court stayed briefing and decision on the motions to
dismiss.  On February 3, 2012, the Plaintiffs moved to be
appointed lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act.  By order dated July 3, 2012, the Court appointed the
Northumberland Plaintiffs lead plaintiff.  On August 17, 2012, the
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which is similar to the
original complaint except that it drops all claims relating to the
2008 offering because the financial statements incorporated into
the July 2008 offering materials were not restated.  On October 3,
2012, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.  The Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motions
to dismiss on November 15, and the Defendants filed their reply
briefs on December 11, 2012.  The motions to dismiss are pending,
and the court has not yet rendered a decision.

The Company says it is currently unable to assess the probability
of loss or estimate a range of potential loss, if any, associated
with the securities class action case, which is at an early stage.

GMX Resources Inc. is an independent oil and natural gas
exploration and production company with a portfolio of leasehold
acreage in multiple resource plays that allows the Company
flexibility to deploy capital based on a variety of economic and
technical factors, including commodity prices (including
differentials applicable to the basin), well costs, service
availability, and take-away capacity.  The Company is
headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


GREEN DOT: Calif. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California granted a motion by defendants to dismiss a
consolidated complaint in the suit In Re Green Dot Corporation
Securities Litigation, Case No. CV 12-6492-GW (CWx), according to
the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On July 27, 2012, an alleged class action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
against the company  and two of the company's officers. A similar
suit was filed on August 10, 2012. Those cases have now been
consolidated under the caption In Re Green Dot Corporation
Securities Litigation, Case No. CV 12-6492-GW (CWx), and a
consolidated complaint has been filed.

The suit asserts purported claims under: (i) Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act for allegedly misleading statements in
January 2012 and April 2012 regarding the company's business and
financial results, on behalf of a class of purchasers of the
company's securities between January 26, 2012 and July 26, 2012 (a
period in which plaintiffs claim the company's stock price was
artificially inflated); and (ii) Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 for alleged misstatements in the company's
IPO Registration Statement and Prospectus, on behalf of persons
who acquired shares in or traceable to the IPO in July 2010. The
suit seeks compensatory damages, fees and costs.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint on February 11, 2013. On May 2, 2013, the Court
conducted a hearing on the matter, granted the defendants' motion,
and dismissed all the claims without prejudice. Plaintiffs were
granted leave to file an amended complaint by June 17, 2013.


GT ADVANCED: Contributes $1MM to Settle Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
GT Advanced Technologies Inc. contributed $1 million to the $10.5
million settlement fund for a securities lawsuit filed against it,
according to the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

In 2008, the Company, its directors and certain affiliates were
defendants in class action suits that alleged certain violations
under various sections of the Securities Act of 1933, in
connection with the company's initial public offering.

In March 2011, these class actions were settled and the company
were required to pay $10.5 million into a settlement fund. Of this
amount, the company contributed $1.0 million and the company's
liability insurers contributed the remaining $9.5 million. The
company's contribution represented the contractual indemnification
obligation to the underwriters.


GUITAR CENTER: Appeal From Dismissal of Antitrust Claims Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of the plaintiffs' Sherman Act claim
in the antitrust multidistrict litigation against Guitar Center
Holdings, Inc., remains pending, according to the Company's
May 13, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On September 11, 2009, a putative class action was filed by an
individual consumer named David Giambusso in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California.  The
complaint alleged that Guitar Center and other defendants,
including a trade association and a large musical instrument
manufacturer, exchanged sensitive information and strategies for
implementing minimum advertised pricing, attempted to restrict
retail price competition and monopolize at trade association-
organized meetings, all in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act and California's Unfair Competition Law.
Subsequently, numerous additional lawsuits were filed in several
federal courts (and one state court) attempting to represent
comparable classes of plaintiffs with parallel allegations.  Some
of these lawsuits have expanded the group of defendants to include
other manufacturers and others have alleged additional legal
theories under state laws.

In December 2009 and January 2010, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation issued several orders which had the
effect of consolidating all pending actions in federal court under
the caption In Re Musical Instruments and Equipment Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. MDL-2121 ("MDL 2121"), except one filed in
Tennessee.  A consolidated amended complaint in MDL 2121 was filed
on July 16, 2010, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California.  On August 20, 2010, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint.  The hearing was held on November 1, 2010.  The court
rendered its opinion on August 19, 2011, granting the motion to
dismiss with leave to amend.  The Plaintiffs filed a first amended
consolidated class action complaint on September 22, 2011.  On
December 28, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued an order limiting
the scope of discovery to non-public meetings at NAMM conventions.
This ruling was affirmed by the District Court on February 7,
2012.  On February 24, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint.  On March 26, 2012, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint.  The motion was heard by the
court on May 21, 2012.  On August 20, 2012, the court dismissed,
with prejudice, the plaintiffs' Sherman Act claim for failure to
plead an antitrust conspiracy.  On September 9, 2012, the
defendants filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment,
requesting that the court amend the judgment to include the
dismissal of the plaintiffs' state-law claims.  This motion was
denied on jurisdictional grounds.  The Plaintiffs filed an appeal
before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  On March 29, 2013, the
defendants filed a joint brief in opposition, which is currently
pending.

With regard to the Tennessee action, the Company had previously
filed a motion to dismiss on September 3, 2010.  On February 22,
2011, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, for which the
Company filed an additional motion to dismiss on March 24, 2011.
The parties in the Tennessee action have agreed to cooperate with
regard to a scheduling order, accordingly there is no hearing date
set for the motion to dismiss.  The plaintiffs in the consolidated
actions are seeking an injunction against further behavior that
has been alleged, as well as monetary damages, restitution and
treble damages in unspecified amounts.  The plaintiffs in the
Tennessee action are seeking no more than $5.0 million in
compensatory damages.

The Company says it is not currently able to estimate a probable
outcome or range of loss in this matter.

Headquartered in Westlake Village, California, Guitar Center
Holdings, Inc., is a retailer of music products in the United
States.  The Company operates in three reportable business
segments: Guitar Center, which offers guitars, amplifiers,
percussion instruments, keyboards and pro audio and recording
equipment; direct response, which offers catalog and online sales
of a broad selection of music products under several brand names,
including Musician's Friend and Music 123; and Music & Arts, which
offers band and orchestra instruments for rental and sale, music
lessons and a limited selection of products of the type offered by
the Company's Guitar Center segment.


GUITAR CENTER: Discovery Continues in "Pellanda" Suit vs. Unit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery continues in the class action lawsuit filed by Carson
Pellanda against a subsidiary of Guitar Center Holdings, Inc.,
according to the Company's May 13, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On August 31, 2011, a putative class action was filed by a former
employee in San Francisco Superior Court in an action entitled
Carson Pellanda vs. Guitar Center, Inc.  The complaint alleges
that Guitar Center allegedly violated California wage and hour
laws, including failure to provide required meal periods, rest
breaks, unpaid work time, and failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements.  On October 4, 2011, a first amended complaint
was filed, adding new allegations, including wrongful termination.
Guitar Center has retained defense counsel.  The first amended
complaint seeks injunctive relief as well as monetary damages in
unspecified amounts.  Mediation was held on May 17, 2012.  The
matter did not settle.  On September 6, 2012, a Second Amended
Complaint was filed, incorporating the allegations of a parallel
wage and hour matter, Gomez vs. Guitar Center Stores, Inc., which
was subsequently dismissed.  Discovery continues.  The Company
says it is not currently able to estimate a probable outcome or
range of loss in this matter.

Headquartered in Westlake Village, California, Guitar Center
Holdings, Inc., is a retailer of music products in the United
States.  The Company operates in three reportable business
segments: Guitar Center, which offers guitars, amplifiers,
percussion instruments, keyboards and pro audio and recording
equipment; direct response, which offers catalog and online sales
of a broad selection of music products under several brand names,
including Musician's Friend and Music 123; and Music & Arts, which
offers band and orchestra instruments for rental and sale, music
lessons and a limited selection of products of the type offered by
the Company's Guitar Center segment.


GUITAR CENTER: Judgment Bid in Song-Beverly Act Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for summary judgment in the consolidated class action
lawsuit alleging violations of the California Song-Beverly Credit
Card Act remains pending, according to Guitar Center Holdings,
Inc.'s May 13, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On May 24, 2011, a putative class action was filed in Los Angeles
Superior Court in an action entitled Jason George vs. Guitar
Center, Inc. and Guitar Center Stores, Inc.  The complaint alleges
that Guitar Center violated the California Song-Beverly Credit
Card Act by requesting that its customers provide personal
identification information in connection with the use of their
credit cards.  The complaint seeks monetary damages including
statutory civil penalties in amounts of up to $1,000 per
violation.  This matter was subsequently consolidated with Justin
Hupalo vs. Guitar Center, a putative class action alleging
violations of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, filed on
October 27, 2011.  Discovery continues.  In December 2012, a
motion for summary judgment was filed on behalf of Guitar Center.
This motion is currently pending.  The Company says it is not
currently able to estimate a probable outcome or range of loss in
this matter.

Headquartered in Westlake Village, California, Guitar Center
Holdings, Inc., is a retailer of music products in the United
States.  The Company operates in three reportable business
segments: Guitar Center, which offers guitars, amplifiers,
percussion instruments, keyboards and pro audio and recording
equipment; direct response, which offers catalog and online sales
of a broad selection of music products under several brand names,
including Musician's Friend and Music 123; and Music & Arts, which
offers band and orchestra instruments for rental and sale, music
lessons and a limited selection of products of the type offered by
the Company's Guitar Center segment.


GUITAR CENTER: Units Defend "Stewart" Wage and Hour Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Guitar Center Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiaries are defending a wage
and hour class action lawsuit in California, according to the
Company's May 13, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On March 18, 2013, a putative class action was filed in Los
Angeles Superior Court in an action entitled Stewart vs. Guitar
Center, Inc. and Guitar Center Stores, Inc.  The complaint alleges
that Guitar Center allegedly violated California wage and hour
laws, including failure to provide required meal periods, rest
breaks, unpaid work time, and failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements.  Guitar Center has retained defense counsel.  The
Company says it is not currently able to estimate a probable
outcome or range of loss in this matter.

Headquartered in Westlake Village, California, Guitar Center
Holdings, Inc., is a retailer of music products in the United
States.  The Company operates in three reportable business
segments: Guitar Center, which offers guitars, amplifiers,
percussion instruments, keyboards and pro audio and recording
equipment; direct response, which offers catalog and online sales
of a broad selection of music products under several brand names,
including Musician's Friend and Music 123; and Music & Arts, which
offers band and orchestra instruments for rental and sale, music
lessons and a limited selection of products of the type offered by
the Company's Guitar Center segment.


HONDA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Accord Engines
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Honda 2008-2011 Accords have
defective engines that let oil into the combustion chambers, a
class action claims in Federal Court.


HUNTINGTON PREFERRED: Parent Continues to Defend MERS Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Preferred Capital, Inc.'s parent continues to defend
itself from a class action lawsuit brought against financial
institutions that participate in the mortgage electronic
registration system, according to the Company's May 13, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On January 17, 2012, the Company was named a defendant in a
putative class action filed on behalf of all 88 counties in Ohio
against MERSCORP, Inc. and numerous other financial institutions
that participate in the mortgage electronic registration system
(MERS).  The complaint alleges that recording of mortgages and
assignments thereof is mandatory under Ohio law and seeks a
declaratory judgment that the defendants are required to record
every mortgage and assignment on real property located in Ohio and
pay the attendant statutory recording fees.  The complaint also
seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs.  Although Huntington has
not been named as a defendant in the other cases, similar
litigation has been initiated against MERSCORP, Inc. and other
financial institutions in other jurisdictions throughout the
country.

Huntington Preferred Capital, Inc. -- http://www.huntington.com/-
- was organized under Ohio law in 1992 and designated as a real
estate investment trust in 1998.  The Company's principal business
objective is to acquire, hold, and manage mortgage assets and
other authorized investments that will generate net income for
distribution to its shareholders.  The Company is headquartered in
Columbus, Ohio.


IGATE CORP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP has filed a class
action lawsuit against iGATE Corporation and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Northern District of California, and docketed under CV 13
2737 PSG LHK, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of iGATE
between March 14, 2012 and May 21, 2013 both dates inclusive.
This class action seeks to recover damages against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors as a result of alleged
violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased iGATE securities during the
Class Period, you have until August 13, 2013 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

iGATE offers a range of information technology solutions to large
and medium-sized organizations using an offshore/onsite model.
The Company's services include client/server design and
development, conversion/migration services, offshore outsourcing,
enterprise resource planning package implementation and
integration services, and software development.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's Chief Executive
Officer and President "Murthy" was involved in an improper
relationship with a subordinate employee in violation of iGATE's
explicit policies to the contrary; and (ii) Murthy's improper
conduct created a risk that he would be terminated from the
Company, jeopardizing the Company's future success.

On May 20, 2013, the Company disclosed that its Board of Directors
terminated the employment of President and CEO Phaneesh Murthy,
effective immediately, after an internal investigation revealed
that Murthy had a relationship "with a subordinate employee and a
claim of sexual harassment" in violation of iGATE's company
policies and Murthy's employment contract.  On this news, iGATE
securities declined 1.58 per share or nearly 10%, to close at
14.82 per share on May 21, 2013.

On May 22, 2013, the Company further revealed that the termination
of the CEO was "'for cause,' and Mr. Murthy is not entitled to
severance payment under the terms of his Employment Agreement with
the Company."  In response to his termination, Defendant Murthy
acknowledged that he had a personal relationship with a Company
employee, which was against company policy stating, "[i]t was a
personal relationship.  The company policy states that any two
employees having a relationship have to inform the superiors."
On this news, iGATE securities declined an additional 0.64 per
share or more than 4%, to close at 14.18 per share on May 22,
2013.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.


INSTANT TAX: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Tax Returns
----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Jonathan E. Fortman disclosed that a nationwide
class action lawsuit has been filed against Instant Tax Services
on behalf of thousands of Americans who have had their tax returns
fraudulently prepared by Instant Tax.  After having their tax
returns deceptively prepared, the victims were also charged
exorbitant, undisclosed fees and were forced to have their refund
checks processed through Instant Tax Service's corporate bank
accounts.

Instant Tax preys on lower income families by luring them in with
promises of fast refunds, rapid loans, and a "Triple Tax
Guarantee." Some examples of Instant Tax's dishonest practices
include:

Illegally filing taxes using only a check stub instead the W2 form
as required by law

Using the personal information of loan applicants to file tax
returns on their behalf without their consent

Storing personal information in order to file tax returns in
subsequent years for previous clients without their consent

Entering false data and modifying tax returns without the client's
knowledge or consent.

The Law Office of Jonathan E. Fortman has filed a nationwide class
action lawsuit against Instant Tax Service in the Southern
District of Ohio, titled Lia Smith-Hutchinson, et al. vs. ITS
Financial, LLC, Case # 3:13-cv-00192-WHR.  The IRS has also filed
suit against Instant Tax in the same district seeking a permanent
injunction to enjoin defendants from ever preparing tax returns in
the future due to similar charges.  The Law Office of Jonathan E.
Fortman aims to obtain justice for the victims, seeking damages in
excess of $5,000,000.

Contact: Jonathan Fortman
         Law Office of Jonathan E. Fortman
         250 Saint Catherine Street
         Florissant, MO, 63031
         Telephone: 314-522-2312


INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Continues to Defend 2 Wage and Hour Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
On August 29, 2012, Integrated Electrical Services Inc. was served
with a wage and hour lawsuit seeking class action certification.
On December 4, 2012, the Company was served with a second lawsuit,
which included the same allegations but different named
plaintiffs.  These two cases are almost identical to several
others filed by the Plaintiffs' attorney against contractors
working in the Port Arthur Motiva plant on various projects over
the last few years.  The claims are based on alleged failure to
compensate for time spent bussing to and from the plant, donning
safety wear and other activities.  It does not appear the company
will face significant exposure for any unpaid wages.  In a
separate earlier case based on the same allegations, a federal
district court ruled that the time spent traveling on the busses
is not compensable.  In early January 2013, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the district court's ruling
finding no liability for wages for time spent on bussing into the
facility.  The Company's investigation indicates that all other
activities alleged either were inapplicable to the Company's
employees or took place during times for which the Company's
employees were compensated.  The Company has filed responsive
pleadings and, following initial discovery, will seek dismissal of
the case through summary judgment.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 13, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

As of March 31, 2013, the Company has not recorded a reserve for
this matter, as the Company believes the likelihood of its
responsibility for damages is not probable and a potential range
of exposure is not estimable.

Houston, Texas-based Integrated Electrical Services Inc. provides
services in the design, installation, and maintenance of
electrical wiring and data communication systems in offices, high-
rise apartments, hospitals, factories, and airports.  In 2006 it
declared bankruptcy, emerging after three months.


JC PENNEY: Loses Bid to Dismiss Class Action Over Robo-Texts
------------------------------------------------------------
Lance Duroni, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge on June 13 rejected J.C. Penney Co. Inc.'s bid to
toss a proposed class action accusing the retailer of peppering
consumers with unsolicited text messages, finding the plaintiff
had made a reasonable case that the texts came from an automated
system.

In a brief order, U.S. District Judge Irma E. Gonzalez denied J.C.
Penney's motion to dismiss the case, which alleges violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act predicated on the use of an
"automatic telephone dialing system."

"Because this court must construe and draw all reasonable
inferences from factual allegations in favor of the nonmoving
party . . . the court finds that the generic and impersonal
content of the text message supports the reasonable inference of
use of an ATDS," the judge said.

Pennsylvania resident Tracy Maier sued J.C. Penney in January,
claiming her privacy was invaded when she received a text from the
department store chain without her consent.  The text asked Maier
to confirm if she wanted to receive further messages on J.C.
Penney sales and other events, and was part of a "mass
transmission" of similar texts sent out by the retailer, according
to the complaint.

Plano, Tex.-based J.C. Penney quickly moved to dismiss the case,
arguing that Maier offered scant facts to support her "conclusory"
allegation that the texts came from an automated system.
Ms. Maier received the text after submitting her cellphone number
to the company's rewards program, and this prior contact made it
more likely that an employee had sent the message to her, the
retailer argued.

But Judge Gonzalez found that this argument is based on factual
allegations outside of the complaint and declined to consider it.

Counsel for J.C. Penney could not be reached for comment on
June 14.

The lawsuit notes that, unlike most other advertisements, text
messages can cost consumers money because they often have a limit
on the texts they can receive each month or are charged for each
text.

Maier asserts claims for both negligent violation of the TCPA and
knowing violation of the statute, and is seeking $500 in damages
on behalf of the class for each of the allegedly tens of thousands
of improper texts sent out by the retailer.

The plaintiff is represented by Ronald A. Marron, Skye Resendez
and Alexis Wood of Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron APLC, and by
Douglas J. Campion.

J.C. Penney is represented by Martin W. Jaszczuk --
mjaszczuk@lockelord.com -- and Thomas J. Cunningham --
tcunningham@lockelord.com -- of Locke Lord LLP.

The case is Tracy Maier v. J.C. Penney Corp. Inc., case number
3:13-cv-00163, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Squire Sanders Discusses Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------
Pierre Bergeron, Esq. -- pierre.bergeron@squiresanders.com -- at
Squire Sanders reports that class action waivers have garnered
significant attention in the arbitration context over recent
years, including several cases that have reached the Supreme Court
on this and related issues.  Recently, in Lowry v. JPMorgan Chase
Bank, the Sixth Circuit considered the effect of a class action
waiver in an arbitration clause.  The plaintiff in that case
signed an agreement with Chase that contained a broad arbitration
clause, including a class action waiver.  Nevertheless, he brought
a lawsuit against Chase on behalf of a putative class claiming
violation of antitrust laws and related state law.  In response to
Chase's motion to compel arbitration, the district court granted
the motion but denied the motion to dismiss class claims,
submitting all of the claims to arbitration.  On appeal, Chase
argued that the class claims were not arbitrable because of the
clear class action waiver.  The Sixth Circuit, however, disagreed,
relying on the broad delegation clause that delegated to the
arbitrator authority to decide arbitrability.  Therefore, even
though the plaintiff signed a clear class action waiver, the Court
held that it was up to the arbitrator to determine how to
interpret the contract.

Although this is an unpublished opinion, it attains new
significance in light of the decision issued the day before by the
U.S. Supreme Court in Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter.  In that
case, the Court refused to disturb an arbitrator's award
determining that a case could proceed on a class action basis.
The case underscores the difficulty of overturning arbitrator
decisions, even if they are simply wrong.

When these two cases are considered together, it poses a number of
issues for parties desiring arbitration of disputes and how those
arbitration clauses should be drafted.  It also raises questions
concerning whether parties should include broad delegation clauses
in their arbitration agreement (which have gained favor in recent
years) and risk that an arbitrator might determine (contrary to
the language in the agreement) that a claim could proceed on a
class basis.   As the Supreme Court recently determined, such a
holding will be difficult to overturn through judicial review.
But the Supreme Court did not consider a clear class action waiver
in Oxford, so it remains to be seen how or whether its analysis
might change if confronted with that scenario.


KEYNOTE SYSTEMS: Being Sold to Thoma for Too Little, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Keynote Systems is selling
itself too cheaply to Thoma Bravo, for $395 million or $20 a
share, shareholders claim in San Mateo County Court.


LHC GROUP: W.D. La. Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana denied a motion by LHC Group, Inc. to dismiss an amended
complaint in a securities suit filed against it,
according to the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On June 13, 2012, a putative shareholder securities class action
was filed against the Company and its Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana, styled City of Omaha Police & Fire
Retirement System v. LHC Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:12-cv-
01609-JTT-CMH.

The action was filed on behalf of LHC shareholders who purchased
shares between July 30, 2008 and October 26, 2011. Plaintiff
generally alleges that the defendants caused false and misleading
statements to be issued in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and that the Company's Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer is a control person under Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. On November 2, 2012, Lead Plaintiff City of Omaha
Police & Fire Retirement System filed an Amended Complaint for
Violations of the Federal Securities Laws ("Amended Complaint") on
behalf of the same putative class of LHC shareholders as the
original Complaint. In addition to claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act, the Amended Complaint added a claim
against the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer for violation of
Section 20A of the Exchange Act.

The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to
defend this lawsuit vigorously. On December 17, 2012, the Company
and the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer filed a motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint, which was denied by Order dated
March 15, 2013. The Company cannot predict the outcome or effect
of this lawsuit, if any, on the Company's business.


LINKEDIN CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Data Breach Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for Online Media Daily, reports that social
networking service LinkedIn is asking a judge to slam the
courthouse door on a user who is trying to bring a class-action
lawsuit against the company for failing to prevent a data breach.

LinkedIn says that the consumer, Virginia resident Khalilah
Wright, still hasn't set out sufficient allegations to proceed
with their lawsuit, which alleges that the company didn't use
basic encryption techniques to secure personally identifiable
information.

A previous version of Ms. Wright's lawsuit was dismissed in March,
but the dismissal was without prejudice -- which enabled Wright to
amend her claims and try again.

The lawsuit stems from an incident last June, when hackers
obtained access to the company's servers and then posted 6.4
million users' passwords online.  Ms. Wright, who purchased a
premium LinkedIn membership, says in her latest complaint that she
wouldn't have done so had she known the company used "obsolete"
security measures.

"Had LinkedIn informed its Premium Subscribers that it would use
security measures that were obsolete before the iPhone or Twitter
were first released, Wright would not have been willing to
purchase her LinkedIn Premium Subscription at the price charged,
if at all," she alleges in her most recent court papers, filed in
April.

She alleges that LinkedIn violated various California business
laws and also broke its contract with her.

When Judge Davila dismissed the earlier version of the case, he
said in the ruling that Wright hadn't shown that she paid
membership fees in exchange for additional security measures.  But
Wright's latest complaint includes a declaration from an expert,
computer scientist Serge Egelman, who says his research shows that
consumers who pay Web sites for memberships expect extra security.

"Through a survey I conducted the week of April 1, 2013, I
determined that when consumers pay for a 'premium" social
networking service, they expect their information to be protected
with a heightened level of security, and that, at a bare minimum,
industry-standard security protocols will be used to guard their
information," Mr. Egelman stated in court papers.

LinkedIn argues that Ms. Wright shouldn't be able to proceed in
federal court without first showing that she suffered an injury.
"Wright does not allege any harm other than her allegation that
she overpaid," LinkedIn argues in papers filed on June 13 with
U.S. District Court Judge Edward Davila in San Jose, Calif.  "She
does not allege that the criminal password theft resulted in or
will result in any harm to her; indeed, she does not even allege
that her password was stolen."

LinkedIn is asking Judge Davila to dismiss Ms. Wright's complaint
with prejudice, which would prevent her from bringing it again.


MANAGED FUTURES: "Abu Dhabi" Class Suit Dismissed in April
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, et al.
v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al., was dismissed in April 2013,
according to Managed Futures Premier Graham L.P.'s May 13, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On August 25, 2008, Morgan Stanley and two ratings agencies were
named as defendants in a purported class action related to
securities issued by a structured investment vehicle called Cheyne
Finance PLC and Cheyne Finance LLC (together, the "Cheyne SIV").
The case was styled Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, et al. v. Morgan
Stanley & Co. Inc., et al.  The general partner of Managed Futures
Premier Graham L.P. is a subsidiary of Morgan Stanley.  The
complaint alleged, among other things, that the ratings assigned
to the securities issued by the Cheyne SIV were false and
misleading, including because the ratings did not accurately
reflect the risks associated with the subprime residential
mortgage backed securities held by the Cheyne SIV.  The plaintiffs
asserted allegations of aiding and abetting fraud and negligent
misrepresentation relating to approximately $852 million of
securities issued by the Cheyne SIV.  On April 24, 2013, the
parties reached an agreement to settle the case, and on April 26,
2013, the court dismissed the action with prejudice.  The
settlement does not cover certain claims that were previously
dismissed.

New York-based Managed Futures Premier Graham L.P. is a Delaware
limited partnership organized in 1998 to engage primarily in the
speculative trading of futures contracts, options on futures and
forward contracts, and forward contracts on physical commodities
and other commodity interests, including foreign currencies,
financial instruments, metals, energy and agricultural products.
Ceres Managed Futures LLC acts as a general partner and commodity
pool operator of Managed Futures.  Ceres is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Holdings LLC, which is
majority-owned indirectly by Morgan Stanley and minority-owned
indirectly by Citigroup Inc.


MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Aug. 30 Deadline Set for Consent Decree
------------------------------------------------------------
Jude Joffe-Block, writing for Fronteras Desk, reports that
attorneys on both sides of a racial profiling class action suit
against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio will spend the next two
months negotiating over a final judgment in the case, known as a
consent decree.

In May, U.S. District Judge Murray Snow ruled the Sheriff's
immigration enforcement systematically violated the rights of
Latino motorists.

The class action suit was brought by Latino motorists in 2007.
The plaintiffs are represented by the ACLU.

At a hearing in federal court in downtown Phoenix on June 14,
Judge Snow granted the lawyers two months to reach agreement on a
final judgment, known as a consent decree.

The parties will meet again in court on Aug. 30.

In that time, the parties will negotiate new protocols for
training, record keeping and an independent monitor for Maricopa
County Sheriff's Office, to ensure the department complies with
Snow's ruling.

The U.S. Department of Justice -- which filed its own lawsuit
against Arpaio alleging discrimination against Latinos in May 2012
-- has asked to be included in those negotiations.

One day before the June 14 hearing, Deputy Assistant Attorney
General Roy Austin, submitted a statement of interest to Snow.

"The United States believes that such talks appropriately could
address the possibility of a global settlement encompassing the
United States' claims against the Sheriff in United States v.
Maricopa County, et al." the statement reads.

"Such an agreement would be in the interests of all of the
parties, the Court, and the people of Maricopa County."

Attorneys on both sides of the DOJ lawsuit attended the June 14
hearing.

Both the ACLU and attorneys for the Sheriff welcomed the idea of
including the DOJ in their negotiations, though questions do
remain.

"I think that just from a common sense litigation standpoint it
would make sense for all the parties to try to resolve as much of
both lawsuits as possible, just as a matter of efficiency," said
Cecillia Wang, an attorney with the ACLU.

Tom Liddy, who represents the Sheriff, agreed. He said it would
save taxpayer money.

"Of course it makes sense to invite them in to the process here,"
Mr. Liddy said.  "It wouldn't make sense to have two trials, and
to have two consent decrees.  But some of the issues are different
in that case."

The DOJ's suit is much broader than the class action case, as it
alleges discrimination against Latinos in the Sheriff's jails, and
worksite enforcement operations.

But Judge Snow said in court the final resolution in the class
action case must be limited to MCSO's dealings with Latino drivers
only.


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Labor Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that The Marriott withholds
accurate wage statements from nonexempt, hourly paid housekeepers
and house aids, and it does not pay them for missed rest periods,
a class claims.


MEDTRONIC: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Statements
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Top officers at Medtronic
made false and misleading statements about its Infuse Bone Graft
and the share price dropped by 24 percent after the truth came
out, shareholders claim in a federal class action.


MERCEDES HOLDINGS: Jones Day Discusses Class Action Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
John Emmerig -- jemmerig@jonesday.com -- and Michael Legg --
mlegg@jonesday.com -- at Jones Day report that the discontinuance
of proceedings against a number of former directors in Mercedes
Holdings Pty Ltd v Waters (No 6) [2012] FCA 1412 illustrates the
importance of D&O insurance and the respondent's ability to pay in
the decision-making of claimants and litigation funders.  The
discontinuance also highlighted the significance of proportionate
liability for claims with multiple respondents as liability is
linked to responsibility for loss.  The significance is even
greater where some respondents are insolvent or have limited
financial resources.

Introduction

The MFS Premium Income Fund class action recently saw the
applicant, a unit holder in the fund, discontinue proceedings
against a number of former directors of the responsible entity for
the fund.  The discontinuance of a class action must be approved
by the court,[1] with the result that the judgment -- Mercedes
Holdings Pty Ltd v Waters (No 6) [2012] FCA 1412 -- provides an
insight into the drivers for claims against directors and
auditors: funds to meet a judgment or settlement.

Claims Against Directors

Central to the applicant's reasons for seeking a discontinuance
was that the directors' and officers' liability policy which
responded to the claims was capped at a confidential figure but
that the policy was, or would soon be, exhausted.

The policy had been used to meet defense costs of the settling
respondents in defending the present proceedings.  The policy also
responded to other claims, including a civil penalty proceeding
brought by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission in
the Supreme Court of Queensland against three of the settling
respondents.  Consequently, upon the basis of estimates of
anticipated future legal costs, no insurance moneys were expected
to be available to meet a judgment in the current proceedings.
Further, evidence established that each of the settling directors
had insufficient assets to meet a judgment.

Presumably related to the lack of funds to pay a judgment, the
court was informed that the litigation funder who was funding the
proceeding no longer wished to fund the litigation against the
settling directors.

The MFS class action demonstrates that a central factor in parties
being joined to class action litigation is their ability to
contribute funds to a settlement or judgment.  Litigation funders
have no interest in pursuing claims against parties that lack
financial resources.  A pyrrhic victory does not assist the
funder's profit-making objectives.  This approach also means that
the funder has an incentive to target entities that have "deep
pockets" -- in this case the auditor, KPMG, which is discussed
below.

The discontinuance was also explained as being consistent with the
obligations of the parties under sections 37M and 37N of the
Federal Court of Australia Act to further the overarching purpose
through narrowing the issues in dispute and seeking to resolve the
proceeding at a cost that is proportionate to the importance of
the proceeding.  Interestingly, the applicant did not seek to
discontinue proceedings against another director, Mr. Price, even
though Jacobson J found that the essential reasons for
discontinuing against the other directors applied to Mr. Price.
Despite the obligations imposed by the overarching purpose,
Jacobson J stated that he did not consider it open to him to
require an explanation for the decision to continue the proceeding
against Mr. Price.

Proportionate Liability and Auditors

After the major cases of the 1980s against auditors, such as AWA
and Adelaide Steamship, various reforms were added to the law so
as to ensure audit firm continuity but still allow for litigation
to deter contraventions and compensate investors: caps on
liability and proportionate liability where there are multiple
wrongdoers.  The incentive to sue "deep pockets" means that those
reforms are now likely to be implicated in class actions.  In
particular, the MFS class action raised the issue of proportionate
liability.

In the MFS class action, KPMG indicated that they intended to rely
in their defense upon a limitation of liability afforded under the
proportionate liability legislation for apportionable claims which
is now in force throughout Australia.  Indeed, after Jacobson J
reserved judgment on the motion for approval of the
discontinuance, the auditors filed a defense which claims that
each of the settling respondents, with the exception of the 15th
respondent, Mr. Zelinski, was a concurrent wrongdoer within the
meaning of the proportionate liability regimes contained in the
New South Wales, Queensland, and Victorian legislation.

However, KPMG were concerned that if the applicable regime for the
determination of proportionate liability is the Wrongs Act 1958
(Vic), the discontinuance of the proceedings against the settling
respondents may prejudice the ability of the auditors to obtain
the full benefit of their limitation of liability under that Act.
Jacobson J took the view that based on undertakings by the former
directors and his view of the operation of the Victorian
legislation, the auditor's concerns should not prevent the court
approving the discontinuance.

The MFS class action demonstrates that the proportionate liability
legislation is likely to figure prominently in cases with multiple
respondents.[2] This is because the legislation, generally
speaking, has the effect that liability in relation to the
applicant's (and group members') claim is apportioned amongst
concurrent wrongdoers, so the liability of any individual
respondent is limited to an amount reflecting the proportion of
the loss claimed that the court considers just, having regard to
the extent of the respondent's responsibility for the loss.  Note,
however, that the apportionment applies only to apportionable
claims, which usually include claims in negligence or misleading
conduct causing economic loss or property damage, and is therefore
not applicable to all claims.

Where an entity, such as an auditor, is the only entity with
financial resources, proportionate liability can mean that it is
not liable for all the loss suffered by the applicant (and the
group members) but only the loss that is attributable to its
wrongdoing.


MERCK & CO: Lawsuits Filed Over Januvia Side Effects
----------------------------------------------------
Injury Lawyer News reports that Merck & Co., the manufacturer of
Januvia, and Amylin, Eli Lilly and Bristol-Myers Squibb, the
manufacturers of Byetta, have respectively been named in Byetta &
Januvia lawsuits.

Januvia (sitagliptin phosphate) and Byetta (exenatide) are two
popular type-2 diabetes medications.  Byetta was approved in 2005
and is a glucagon-like peptide-1 agonist (GLP-1 agonist), while
Januvia, a DPP-4 inhibitor, first received FDA approval in 2006.
Since their approvals, both drugs have reached blockbuster status,
raking in millions in profits.  But both drugs have also been
linked to serious, life-threatening side effects.

On April 5, 2013, a group of plaintiffs filed a petition for
multidistrict litigation (MDL) to be established for cases filed
in federal courts where diabetes drugs like Januvia and Byetta are
alleged to have caused pancreatic cancer and related injuries.
The motion suggests the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California as an appropriate location for the MDL,
where many Januvia and Byetta lawsuits are already pending.  MDL
which would join multiple Byetta, Victoza, Janumet, and Januvia
lawsuit complaints into one court for the purpose of streamlining
the pre-trial process, facilitating settlement negotiation, and/or
helping to bring the cases to trial in an expedited fashion.  Over
50 such cases have been filed in federal courts across the
country, with the number expected to grow.
Side effects of Januvia and Byetta

Both diabetes medications have a long list of general and minor
side effects, but legal complaints typically allege the most
serious of Byetta and Januvia side effects.

Side effects most often referenced in Januvia lawsuits include:

    Kidney failure, sometime severe enough to require dialysis

    Severely low blood sugar, leading to confusion, dizziness,
drowsiness, fast heart beat, headache, hunger, irritability, a
jittery sensation, sweating, and weakness

    Severe allergic reaction

    Pancreatitis, or inflammation of the pancreas, that may be
severe enough to cause death

    Pancreatic cancer

    Thyroid cancer

Byetta lawsuit plaintiffs commonly cite:

    Acute necrotizing pancreatitis

    Kidney (renal) damage or failure

    Severe allergic reactions

    Pancreatic cancer

    Thyroid cancer

Byetta and Januvia lawsuit allegations

Dangerous drug lawsuits usually have certain elements in common;
plaintiffs claim to have experienced similar injuries, and make
similar allegations about the drug manufacturer's liability and
negligence in publicizing the drug's risks.  Merck & Co.
manufactures Januvia, while Amylin Pharmaceuticals and Eli Lilly
and Company, as well as Bristol-Myers Squibb, which purchased
Amylin for approximately $5.3 billion in 2012, are the targets of
Byetta complaints.

Litigation for both diabetes medications makes similar
allegations, including:

    Failure to warn of severe side effects
    Negligent manufacturing and marketing
    Fraud
    Fraudulent concealment
    Breach of implied warranty
    Breach of express warranty
    Negligent misrepresentation
    Manufacturing defect

Januvia and Byetta class action & multidistrict litigation

Januvia and Byetta lawsuits have been filed around the United
States, and many plaintiffs are waiting for a possible next step:
consolidation.  Two of the most common forms of consolidated
litigation are class action lawsuits and multidistrict litigation
(MDL).

Class action lawsuits are uncommon in dangerous drug litigation,
including cases involving Januvia and Byetta.  In a class action
lawsuit, all plaintiffs are grouped into one, and one or several
individuals represent the entire class.  This means that if the
representatives win their case, all plaintiffs win; any settlement
or jury verdict is divided among the parties.  Likewise, if a
representative loses his or her case, all plaintiffs lose.
Because of this all-or-nothing outcome, cases -- complaints,
complications, allegations, and other details -- must be virtually
identical to one another.

In multidistrict litigation (MDL), plaintiffs from around the
nation have their cases centralized into one court for pre-trial
procedures, such as discovery. Consolidation allows for
streamlined processes and helps avoid duplicate rulings from
different judges.  It also gives plaintiffs the opportunity to
pool their resources, and work together to build stronger cases.
However, unlike a class action lawsuit, multidistrict litigation
allows each plaintiff to retain his or her individual rights --
the right to negotiate a settlement, go to trial, and make other
decisions.

Additionally, after pretrial preparations are complete, each MDL
plaintiff is remanded back to his or her original court of filing
for trial.  Each plaintiff proceeds with his or her own case, in
an individual trial.  Because MDLs allow for plaintiff autonomy,
lawyers for plaintiffs who have filed dangerous drug lawsuits
often petition the court for multidistrict litigation.

Additionally, multicounty litigation (MCL) and mass torts are
common; they work just like an MDL, but are consolidated on a
state level.

Byetta and Januvia lawsuit settlements

For most drug lawsuits, settlement negotiations take place on a
case-by-case basis and spike before MDL trials are slated to
begin.  Bellwether trials -- the first cases tried in the MDL --
are meant to establish the relative strength of the cases and the
likely reactions of juries to the allegations and evidence.  If a
case resolves in favor of the plaintiff, pharmaceutical companies
may be looking at significant damages payouts, in some cases
reaching the hundreds of millions of dollars.

To date, Januvia and Byetta defendants -- Merck, Amylin, Eli Lilly
and Bristol-Myers Squibb -- have not made any significant, public
offers to settle.  However, with MDL looming on the horizon, it is
possible that Januvia and Byetta lawsuit settlements may be
negotiated in the future.

A Byetta or Januvia lawyer can help

A product liability attorney can help fight for your right to
compensation and damages if you have been injured by the side
effects of diabetes drugs like Januvia and Byetta.  For many,
taking these medications to control their blood sugar has led to a
lifetime of complications -- kidney failure, life-threatening
pancreatitis, thyroid cancer, pancreatic cancer, and more.

No settlement or jury award can right these wrongs, but an
experienced attorney can help win compensation you for your pain
and suffering, lost wages, medical costs and other damages
suffered. Some of the most common requests for damages in a Byetta
or Januvia lawsuit include:

    Medical treatment costs
    Long-term medical care expenses
    Lost wages
    Diminished earning capacity
    Pain and suffering
    Emotional anguish
    Permanent injury or disability


METROPCS WIRELESS: Faces Class Suit Over Service
------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that MetroPCS and T-Mobile claim
that they provide a month of service for a fixed price but do not
disclose that customers who pay their bills after the due date do
not receive a full month of service, a class claims.


MICHAEL FOODS: Antitrust Tag-Along Case v. Unit Resolved in April
-----------------------------------------------------------------
One tag-along case in the antitrust class action lawsuits against
a subsidiary of Michael Foods Group, Inc., was resolved in April
2013, according to the Company's May 13, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 30, 2013.

In late 2008 and early 2009, some 22 class-action lawsuits were
filed in various federal courts against Michael Foods, Inc. and
approximately 20 other defendants (producers of shell eggs,
manufacturers of processed egg products, and egg industry
organizations), alleging violations of federal and state antitrust
laws in connection with the production and sale of shell eggs and
processed-egg products, and seeking unspecified damages.  The
Plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide classes of direct and
indirect purchasers, and allege that the defendants conspired to
reduce the supply of eggs by participating in animal husbandry,
egg-export and other programs of various egg-industry
associations.  In December 2008, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered the transfer of all cases to the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated and/or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.  Between late 2010 and early
2012, a number of companies, each of which would be part of the
purported class in the antitrust action, brought separate actions
against defendants.  These "tag-along" cases, brought primarily by
various grocery chains and food companies, assert essentially the
same allegations as the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint in
the main action.  All but one of the tag-along cases were either
filed in or transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
where they are being treated as related to the main action;
discovery is underway in these matters.  The one tag-along case
where pretrial proceedings are not under the jurisdiction of the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania was brought by a retail grocery
chain in Kansas state court under Kansas state law.  That
particular matter was resolved through a confidential settlement
agreement on April 11, 2013.

As of March 30, 2013, the Company has recorded the settlement
amount in "other current liabilities" and also recorded an
insurance receivable in "accounts receivable, less allowances."

Michael Foods Group, Inc. -- http://www.michaelfoods.com/-- is a
diversified producer and distributor of food products in three
segments -- egg products, refrigerated potato products and cheese
and other dairy case products.  The Minnetonka, Minnesota-based
Company produces and distributes egg products to the foodservice,
retail and food ingredient markets.  The Company also processes
and distributes refrigerated potato products and a broad line of
refrigerated grocery products to U.S. retail grocery outlets and
food ingredient markets.


MORGAN STANLEY: "Abu Dhabi" Class Suit Dismissed in April
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, et al.
v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al., was dismissed in April 2013,
according to Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Charter WNT L.P.'s
May 13, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On August 25, 2008, Morgan Stanley and two ratings agencies were
named as defendants in a purported class action related to
securities issued by a structured investment vehicle called Cheyne
Finance PLC and Cheyne Finance LLC (together, the "Cheyne SIV").
The case was styled Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, et al. v. Morgan
Stanley & Co. Inc., et al.  The complaint alleged, among other
things, that the ratings assigned to the securities issued by the
Cheyne SIV were false and misleading, including because the
ratings did not accurately reflect the risks associated with the
subprime residential mortgage backed securities held by the Cheyne
SIV.  The plaintiffs asserted allegations of aiding and abetting
fraud and negligent misrepresentation relating to approximately
$852 million of securities issued by the Cheyne SIV.  On April 24,
2013, the parties reached an agreement to settle the case, and on
April 26, 2013, the court dismissed the action with prejudice.
The settlement does not cover certain claims that were previously
dismissed.

Headquartered in New York, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Charter WNT
L.P. is a Delaware limited partnership organized in 1998 to engage
primarily in the speculative trading of futures contracts, options
on futures and forward contracts, and forward contracts on
physical commodities and other commodity interests, including
foreign currencies, financial instruments, metals, energy and
agricultural products.  The Partnership is one of the Morgan
Stanley Charter series of funds, comprised of the Partnership,
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Charter Aspect L.P., and Morgan
Stanley Smith Barney Charter Campbell L.P.  Ceres Managed Futures
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, acts as a general
partner and commodity pool operator for the Partnership.  Ceres is
a wholly-owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Holdings
LLC, which is majority-owned indirectly by Morgan Stanley and
minority-owned indirectly by Citigroup Inc.


MGP OFFICE: Faces Several Suits Over Merger With Brookfield
-----------------------------------------------------------
MPG Office Trust, Inc. faces lawsuits over a merger agreement with
Brookfield Office Properties Inc., according to MGP's May 9, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On April 24, 2013, the Company entered into a definitive merger
agreement pursuant to which a newly formed fund controlled by
Brookfield Office Properties Inc. ("Brookfield") agreed to acquire
the Company.

Following the announcement of the merger, a putative class action
lawsuit captioned Kim v. MPG Office Trust, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-
13-002600, was filed in the Circuit Court of the State of Maryland
in Baltimore, and two putative class action lawsuits captioned
Coyne v. MPG Office Trust, Inc., et al., No. BC507342, and Masih
v. MPG Office Trust, Inc., et al., No. BC507962, were filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California in Los Angeles County.

The complaints name as defendants MPG Office Trust, Inc., the
members of its board of directors, MPG Office, L.P., Brookfield
Office Properties Inc., Brookfield DTLA Fund Office Trust Investor
Inc., Brookfield DTLA Fund Office Trust Inc., Brookfield DTLA Fund
Properties LLC and Brookfield DTLA Inc., and allege that the MPG
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed merger by failing to maximize the value of MPG and
ignoring or failing to protect against conflicts of interest, and
that the Brookfield defendants, and in the case of the Maryland
action, MPG Office, L.P., aided and abetted those breaches of
fiduciary duty.

The complaints do not allege a cause of action against MPG Office
Trust, Inc., and the California complaints do not allege a cause
of action against MPG Office, L.P. The complaints seek an
injunction against the proposed merger, rescission or rescissory
damages in the event it has been consummated, an award of fees and
costs, including attorneys' and experts' fees, and other relief.


MYTECHHELP LLC: Faces Class Action Over Bank Fraud
--------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that MyTechHelp
defrauds people by offering "tech support" to get their bank
account information, then repeatedly taking money from the
accounts, a class action claims in Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff Kelly Guerra sued MyTechHelp LLC, of Ft.
Lauderdale, Fla.

Guerra claims MyTechHelp markets itself as a provider technical
support for electronic devices, leading customers to believe they
have contacted the manufacturer for technical support.

Guerra claims MyTechHelp is an unaffiliated and unqualified
service provider.

"Over the telephone, defendant requests the consumer's personal
debit/credit card account information for payment of the technical
support service," the complaint states.  "After the consumer
provides defendant with their debit/credit card number, defendant
initiates an unauthorized recurring charge to the unknowing
consumer's account."

Guerra claims she contacted MyTechHelp, thinking she was
contacting Apple, seeking a way to find her lost iPhone.  She says
she agreed to pay $69.99 to use the defendant's equipment to find
the phone.

"At no time during the telephone conversation did the salesperson
explain to plaintiff that defendant was in fact not Apple, and was
in fact not in any way affiliated with Apple," the complaint
states.

"At no time during the telephone conversation did the salesperson
request permission to initiate recurring charges to plaintiff's
account.

"At no time during the telephone conversation did plaintiff agree
to authorize defendant to initiate recurring charges to
plaintiff's account.

"At no time during the telephone conversation did plaintiff agree
to purchase a 'tech support plan' whereby she would be charged a
monthly recurring payment of $19.99 which would be electronically
transferred from her account to defendant."

The class consists of all U.S. residents who had a credit or debit
card account from which the defendant made unauthorized recurring
withdrawals.

Guerra seeks an injunction and damages for fraud, deceptive trade,
violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, consumer
fraud, violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, and unjust
enrichment.

Guerra is represented by Thomas Schwartz, Esq. --
tschwartz@holloranlaw.com -- with Holloran White Schwartz &
Gaertner.


NOVA SCOTIA HOME: Certification Hearing Adjourned Until July 8
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eva Hoare, writing for The Chronicle Herald, reports that in a
surprise move, lawyers for the Nova Scotia government have asked
for time to go over some "new issues" in the certification hearing
of a class-action lawsuit launched by former residents of the Nova
Scotia Home for Colored Children.

The province's lawyers said just after noon that the residents'
legal team raised new issues in the morning that it needs to
investigate.

Justice Arthur LeBlanc granted an adjournment until July 8.

Earlier on June 14, a lawyer for the residents charged that the
government has "denied" children who "suffered" over decades at
the home the evidence they need in their fight for justice.

"The province (says) 'We're not giving you evidence that we had
duties ... because we had no duties,'" to the children, Mike Dull
said in his submission in Nova Scotia Supreme Court in Halifax.

Mr. Dull and Ray Wagner, lawyers for the residents, are asking
Justice LeBlanc to approve their proposed class action against the
province.  This is the fifth day of certification hearings into
the case.

Mr. Dull said that and other moves by the province have been
"inappropriate."

He also alleged that the attorney general's lawyers left out
important evidence that shows the province was responsible for the
children at the home.

The residents' lawyer cited the provincial Child Welfare Act of
1950 that states the province, through a director, was responsible
for neglected children.

"The director shall assist . . . child caring institutions . . ."
on a wide variety of care given to such children, Mr. Dull said,
including medical and nutritional needs.

"That's a pretty strong statutory duty.  The province didn't
mention that, didn't put that before your lordship."

Provincial lawyer Peter McVey objected to one of Mr. Dull's
charges that it failed to include such information in its
submission to the judge.

The province has maintained the home was the responsibility of
Children's Aid Societies in Nova Scotia, and what did or didn't
happen at the Dartmouth orphanage is not its problem.

But Mr. Dull said that over a number of decades, provincial acts
and regulations state the province is "liable" for wards of such
societies and agencies, including the home.  He also argued that
the province "heaped" blame on the Children's Aid Societies in an
attempt to "distance itself" from liability.


NOVOPAY: Nine Worst-Hit Teachers in Payroll Fiasco File Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
TVNZ reports that nine of the worst-hit teachers in the Novopay
fiasco will lay their financial situations bare in court in a bid
to prove the education secretary has broken the law.

It comes as possibly Novopay's most ridiculous botch-up to date is
brought to light -- a teacher whose pay check came in at just 1c.

The nine teachers' cases are being brought alongside a class
action by the Post Primary Teachers' Association on behalf of
18,000 members against Ministry of Education acting secretary
Peter Hughes.

The union said it wants the ministry to shoulder the blame for the
fiasco.

"It's the Government we are suing, not the person," president
Angela Roberts said.

The Novopay payroll system for teachers and school support staff
went live last August and has resulted in a series of botch-ups
including staff being underpaid, overpaid and not paid at all.

Talent2, the contractor tasked with implementing the system, has
drowned in technical difficulties and an increasing backlog of
errors, a recent inquiry found.

The plaintiffs include one who was overpaid, affecting their
Working for Families tax credits, then underpaid so much they had
to cut back mortgage payments.  The same teacher was told via a
payslip that their permanent position had ended.

Another, on a regular roster, had tax vary wildly from week to
week and recently had $1000 randomly deducted from their pay.
Advertisement

"Even my address changes, yet I am absolutely certain I have not
moved house."

Another is paying extra interest on their mortgage because their
income is less than anticipated.

One could not afford petrol for the car, another had the phone
disconnected and one suffered sleep loss, panic and anxiety as a
result of Novopay errors.

In addition to the nine plaintiffs, the union says one teacher
received 1c for her fortnightly pay, which the ministry described
to the union as a common "rounding issue".

The union is fighting to have a statutory declaration from the
court that Mr. Hughes has breached his Education Act obligations
to pay school staff and teachers.

The nine teachers would also be seeking damages for lost wages and
the union was seeking additional damages.

Ms. Roberts is confident of victory in court.

"We want it to be clear that, when the law is broken by people at
the top, they can be held accountable in a court of law just like
the rest of us.  They have broken the law."

Mr. Hughes said on June 14 that problems in the system were being
sorted and the backlog clearance was "making headway".

The ministry said it "fully recognizes and respects the right of
the PPTA to take this action".

"We will be defending it vigorously in court".


ONEWEST BANK: Faces Class Action Over Breach of Contract
--------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that insurers
with ties to OneWest Bank "exacerbated the foreclosure crisis" and
abused elders by forcing struggling homeowners to pay sky-high
costs for force-placed insurance products, a class action claims
in Superior Court.

Lead plaintiff Geraldine Doyle sued OneWest Bank, IndyMac Bank and
its subsidiary Financial Freedom Senior Funding, force-placed
insurance providers QBE Insurance Group, and Assurant, and its
affiliate American Security Insurance Co.

Doyle seeks class damages for breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, financial elder abuse,
tortious interference and other counts.  Her co-plaintiff Kuda
Mujeyi lives in New York and owns property in Arizona.

OneWest bought IndyMac after the company collapsed in 2008.

A force-placed insurance policy is placed on a borrower's home
when a homeowner's policy lapses, often because the borrower is
struggling to pay his mortgage, according to the complaint.

Homeowners typically have to carry insurance on their homes.  But
Doyle says lenders force-place borrowers into costly insurance
policies without giving them the chance to shop around for more
affordable products.

That, Doyle claims, tips many homeowners into default.

By way of example, Doyle says her annual premium for homeowners
insurance through the California Fair Plan was $384.  When that
insurance lapsed, Doyle says, she was hit with a $2,754 annual
premium through QBE.

The New York State Department of Financial Services recently
investigated Assurant's force-placed insurance policies, leading
to a $14 million settlement.  Assurant agreed to compensate
homeowners who faced financial hardship after they were forced to
pay for the products.

QBE and Assurant, dominant players in the force-placed insurance
market, both have close ties to OneWest and IndyMac, Doyle says in
the complaint.

She claims that Assurant and QBE make tremendous profits from
force-placed mortgage products.  Assurant collected $2.7 billion
in premiums from force-placed insurance products in 2010 alone,
according to the complaint.

"Force-placed insurance policies are generally meant to protect a
mortgagee's interest in the borrower's property when the
borrower's insurance policy has lapsed.  Defendants, however, have
turned them into a severely inflated profit-making machine for
themselves at the expense of the homeowner," the complaint states.

The more costly the insurance policy, the more lenders and
insurance companies reap in commissions and kickbacks, Doyle says.
She claims commissions are not disclosed to borrowers, and that
inflated premiums are blamed on the increased risk of the
borrower.

Banks routinely pass onto borrowers the cost of kickbacks and
commissions, though banks do next to nothing to service the
account, Doyle says in the complaint.

"The premiums on force-placed insurance policies generally cost at
least five to six times, and often up to ten times, more than what
the borrower was either paying originally for homeowner's
insurance or what the borrower could obtain on the open market,"
the complaint states.

QBE and Assurant also backdate force-placed insurance products,
charging for retroactive coverage, the complaint states.

"Regulators have begun to take notice," the 36-page lawsuit
states.  "Indeed, after pressure from the California Insurance
Commissioner, defendant American Security announced that it will
be slashing its force-placed insurance rates by approximately 30
percent."

Doyle says that all 50 states recently entered into settlements to
try to eliminate the shadier sides of force-placed insurance,
including kickbacks and referral fees.

"By securing these force-placed insurance policies through these
exclusive relationships and not seeking competitive bids on the
open market or attempting to continue or reestablish the prior
insurance policy, the OneWest defendants are not only obtaining
the highest non-competitive premium rate, but also engaging in
self-dealing and profiteering," the complaint states.

Doyle seeks refunds of all "unjust benefits," and exemplary
damages, restitution, and costs.

She is represented by Michael Eyerly with Deblase Brown Eyerly.

Hundreds of lawsuits and many class actions have been filed
challenging force-placed insurance products.  Many of those
challenge specific products, such as a bank insisting that a
homebuyer purchase flood insurance from a specific insurer.
Doyle's complaint is more wide-ranging.


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Amended Complaint Filed in Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The counsel for the Lead Plaintiff in a suit against Orbitz
Worldwide, Inc. over alleged violation of antitrust and consumer
protection laws, filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint, according
to the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

On August 20, 2012, a putative consumer class action was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against certain major hotel chains, and the leading
online travel companies (OTCs), including Orbitz.

The complaint alleged that the hotel chains and OTCs, including
Orbitz, violated antitrust and consumer protection laws by
entering into agreements in which OTCs agree not to facilitate the
reservation of hotel rooms at prices that are less than those
found on the hotel chain websites.

Following the filing of the initial complaint on August 20, 2012,
several dozen additional putative consumer class action complaints
were filed in federal courts across the country. These cases were
then consolidated for pretrial purposes by the Judicial Panel on
Multi-District Litigation and transferred to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On May 1, 2013,
counsel for the Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint. The company cannot currently estimate a range of the
company's potential loss if the company do not prevail in this
litigation.


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Ark. Court Certifies Class in Hotel Taxes Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Arkansas on February 18,
2013, granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in a suit
filed against Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. over hotel taxes, according
to the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

On March 8, 2013, the online travel companies filed their notice
of appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court the circuit court's
February 18, 2013 order granting class certification.


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: N.Y. Supreme Court Certifies Hotel Taxes Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the State of New York on April 11, 2013,
granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in a suit filed
against Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. over hotel taxes, according to the
company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.


SILVER SPRING: Court Refuses to Certify Suit Over Smart Meters
--------------------------------------------------------------
The State of California, San Mateo County denied without prejudice
the class certification motion in the suit Edwards v. Silver
Spring Networks filed against Silver Spring Networks, Inc.,
according to the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

According to the Company, "We were named in a lawsuit filed on
September 9, 2010 in the Superior Court of the State of
California, San Mateo County (Edwards v. Silver Spring Networks).
The lawsuit claims to be a "class action" on behalf of California
consumers, and alleges that smart meters are defective and
generate incorrect bills."

"We have filed a motion to dismiss this case and, on September 1,
2011, the San Mateo Superior Court granted our motion without
leave to amend as to two of the plaintiffs' causes of action and
with leave to amend as to a third claim. On February 25, 2012 the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On May 30, 2012, we filed
an answer to the amended complaint denying the plaintiffs'
allegations. On August 3, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint, and on September 18, 2012, we filed a demurrer
to one of the two claims asserted in the second amended complaint.
The court has overruled our demurrer."

On November 9, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. A hearing on the class certification motion was
held on January 25, 2013. On April 11, 2013, the court denied the
class certification motion without prejudice.


SMART ONLINE: Yet to Issue Stocks Under "Beauregard" Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Smart Online Inc. said in its May 13, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013, that as of May 13, 2013, the 1,475,000 shares of
common stock that were to be issued as part of its settlement of a
class action lawsuit filed by Mary Jane Beauregard had not been
issued.

On June 18, 2010, the Company entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement (the "Stipulation") with the lead
plaintiff in the securities class action involving the Company in
the case captioned Mary Jane Beauregard vs. Smart Online, Inc., et
al., filed in the District Court (the "Class Action").  The
Stipulation provides for the settlement of the Class Action on
certain terms.  The District Court issued an order preliminarily
approving the settlement on January 13, 2011.  The final
settlement hearing was held on May 11, 2011.  As of May 13, 2013,
the 1,475,000 shares of common stock had not been issued and,
according to generally accepted in the United States of America
("GAAP"), the Company now carries the obligation as a Financial
Instrument on its balance sheet.

The Stipulation provides for the certification of a class
consisting of all persons who purchased the Company's publicly
traded securities between May 2, 2005, and September 28, 2007,
inclusive.  As per the terms of the Stipulation, the settlement
class has received total consideration of a cash payment of
$350,000 made by the Company, and a cash payment of $112,500 made
by Maxim Group.  In addition, Henry Nouri is required to transfer
25,000 shares of Company common stock to the settlement class and
the Company is required to issue 1,475,000 shares of Company
common stock to the class.  Under the terms of the Stipulation,
counsel for the settlement class may sell some or all of the
common stock received in the settlement before distribution to the
class, subject to the limitation that it cannot sell more than
10,000 shares in one day or 50,000 shares in 30 calendar days.
Subject to the terms of the Stipulation, the Company paid the lead
plaintiff $75,000 on July 14, 2010, $100,000 on September 15,
2010, $100,000 on December 14, 2010, and $75,000 on March 14,
2011.  On July 1, 2011, the District Court issued the Final
Judgment and Order of Partial Dismissal with Prejudice in the
Class Action case.  The Court approved the Stipulation and
directed that the terms of how the Stipulation should be
consummated.  On July 1, 2011, the Company recorded the Class
Action obligation as a financial instrument liability.

On January 13, 2011 (the "Effective Date"), the District Court
issued the Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing
Notice.  Based upon the Settlement Agreement and the January 13,
2011 District Court Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and
Providing Notice, the Company paid for the benefit of the Dennis
Michael Nouri, Reza Eric Nouri, Henry Nouri and Ronna Loprete
Nouri, collectively, the Nouri Parties, a total of $1,332,773
between January 2011 and February 2012.  The Company was ordered
by a court of proper jurisdiction to withhold $67,227 for future
payment of adjudicated debt owed by the Nouri Parties.  The
Settlement Agreement provides for the exchange of mutual releases
by the parties.

Durham, North Carolina-based Smart Online Inc. --
http://www.MobileSmith.com/-- develops and markets a full range
of mobile application software products and services that are
delivered via a Software-as-a-Service, or SaaS, model.  The
Company also provides Web site and mobile consulting services to
businesses and not-for-profit organizations.


SOUNDBITE COMMUNICATIONS: Indemnifies GameStop in TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
SoundBite Communications, Inc. indemnified GameStop Corp. in
relation to the suit Karayan v. GameStop Corp. and GameStop Inc.
over "mobile termination" text messages, according to SoundBite's
May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Over the past two years, class action litigation has been
initiated against a number of banks and retailers, including some
of the Company's clients, alleging that "mobile termination" text
messages violate the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act or
TCPA, which seeks to protect the privacy interests of residential
telephone subscribers. When a business receives a text message
indicating that the sender wishes to "opt out" of further text
communications from the business, a mobile termination text
message may be transmitted automatically in order to confirm that
the business received the opt-out message and will not send any
additional text messages.

On October 21, 2011, the Company received a notice from GameStop
Corp. and GameStop Inc., which together the Company refers to as
GameStop, requesting indemnification in connection with a class
action litigation entitled Karayan v. GameStop Corp. and GameStop
Inc., which the Company refers to as the Karayan Litigation, which
had been initiated against GameStop in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California (later transferred to the U.S.
District Court of the Northern District of Texas) based in part on
mobile termination text messages. The Company was not a named
defendant or other party in the Karayan Litigation.

On January 6, 2012, the Company delivered a letter agreement to
GameStop, in which the Company agreed to indemnify GameStop in
relation to the Karayan Litigation. After investigation, it was
determined to deliver the letter agreement dated January 6, 2012
in order to, pursuant to the provisions of the Company's Master
Pricing Agreement with GameStop, (a) indemnify GameStop for
damages, losses and fees resulting from the aspects of the Karayan
Litigation relating to mobile termination text messages and (b)
confirm that the Company will take sole control over the defense,
and any settlement, of the Karayan Litigation.

In addition to claims relating to mobile termination text
messages, the Karayan Litigation also asserts claims alleging that
GameStop is liable to certain of its customers because it failed
to obtain prior express consent to the delivery of text messages.
In the letter agreement, the Company reserved its rights
concerning any argument that it may have as to its obligation to
indemnify GameStop with respect to the aspects of the Karayan
Litigation relating to the alleged lack of prior express consent.

On February 12, 2013, following a settlement between the parties,
the court dismissed with prejudice the claims initiated against
GameStop in the Karayan Litigation. For the purpose of avoiding
additional litigation costs, the Company agreed to pay to the
plaintiff, on behalf of GameStop, an immaterial amount, and the
Company effectively has been relieved of any further
indemnification obligations to GameStop relating to the Karayan
Litigation.

Class action litigation has been initiated against a number of
businesses to date with respect to claims under the TCPA involving
mobile termination text messages. On November 29, 2012 the FCC
issued a Declaratory Ruling indicating that the sending of a one-
time mobile termination message is not a violation of the TCPA
subject to certain possible exceptions. It is unclear what effect
this ruling will have on claims initiated under the TCPA in
relation to mobile termination messages, and it is possible that
similar or new claims will be asserted in the future against
businesses, some of which may be clients of the Company.

If the Company is required to indemnify a client under such a
future claim, the Company could incur material costs and expenses
that would have a material adverse effect on its business,
financial condition and operating results. Moreover, if the
Company were obligated to indemnify clients with respect to
multiple class actions of this type, the costs of defending those
actions could, by themselves and without regard to the ultimate
outcomes of the actions, have a material adverse effect on its
business, financial condition and operating results.


SOUNDBITE COMMUNICATIONS: Sued for A2P SMS, Wants 2ergo to Cover
----------------------------------------------------------------
SoundBite Communications, Inc. continues to face a consolidated
class action complaint, which the Company refers to as the A2P SMS
Antitrust Litigation, according to the company's May 9, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On April 5, 2012, a class action litigation, which the Company
refers to as the Club Texting Litigation, was filed against
numerous defendants, including the Company. On April 6, 2012, a
related class action litigation, which the Company refers to as
the TextPower Litigation, was filed against numerous defendants,
including the Company. On May 10, 2012, a further related class
action litigation, which the Company refers to as the iSpeedBuy
litigation, was filed against numerous defendants, including the
Company.

On June 14, 2012, a consolidated class action complaint, which the
Company refers to as the A2P SMS Antitrust Litigation, was filed
that amended and consolidated the Club Texting Litigation,
TextPower Litigation and iSpeedBuy Litigation. In the A2P SMS
Antitrust Litigation, the Company is named as alleged successor-
in-interest to 2ergo Americas, which the Company acquired in
February 2012.

The A2P SMS Antitrust Litigation alleges that the named mobile
telecom companies and alleged aggregators violated antitrust
provisions set forth in the Sherman Act through the use of various
common short code requirements related to the sending of text
messages by businesses to consumers. Further, the A2P SMS
Antitrust Litigation is seeking confirmation of a class of
entities and persons who leased a common short code from Neustar,
Inc. and sent or received text messages through one or more
aggregators.

The Company has served an indemnification claim on 2ergo Group
plc, the former parent company of 2ergo Americas, in relation to
the A2P SMS Antitrust Litigation. 2ergo Group plc did not object
to the claim. In connection with the acquisition, $750,000 was
deposited in an escrow account to secure claims by the Company for
breaches of representations and warranties made with respect to
2ergo Americas.

The Company intends to defend vigorously against the claims in the
A2P SMS Antitrust Litigation that allege violations of the Sherman
Act. At this time it is not possible for the Company to estimate
the amount of damages, losses, fees and other expenses that it
will incur as the result of the A2P SMS Antitrust Litigation, but
such an amount could have a material adverse effect on its
business, financial condition and operating results. Even if the
Company succeeds in defending against the A2P SMS Antitrust
Litigation, it is likely to incur substantial costs and
management's attention will be diverted from its operations.


SPIRIT REALTY: Faces Suit in Maryland Over Cole Credit Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Spirit Realty Capital, Inc. faces a lawsuit filed in the Circuit
Court for Baltimore City, Maryland captioned Kendrick, et al. v.
Spirit Realty Capital, Inc., et al. in relation to its merger with
Cole Credit Property Trust II, Inc., according to Spirit Realty's
May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On January 22, 2013, Spirit Realty Capital, the Spirit Operating
Partnership, Cole Credit Property Trust II, Inc., a Maryland
corporation ("CCPTII"), and Cole Operating Partnership II, LP, a
Delaware limited partnership (the "Cole Operating Partnership"),
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger
Agreement").

In connection with the Company Merger, on March 5, 2013, a
putative class action and derivative lawsuit was filed in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland against and purportedly
on behalf of Spirit Realty Capital captioned Kendrick, et al. v.
Spirit Realty Capital, Inc., et al.

The complaint was amended on April 26, 2013, and names as
defendants Spirit Realty Capital, the members of the board of
directors of Spirit Realty Capital, the Spirit Operating
Partnership, CCPTII and the Cole Operating Partnership, and
alleges that the directors of Spirit Realty Capital breached their
fiduciary duties by engaging in an unfair process leading to the
Merger Agreement, failing to disclose sufficient material
information for Spirit Realty Capital stockholders to make an
informed decision regarding whether or not to approve the Merger,
agreeing to a Merger Agreement at an opportunistic and unfair
price, allowing draconian and preclusive deal protection devices
in the Merger Agreement, and engaging in self-interested and
otherwise conflicted actions.

The complaint alleges that Spirit Realty Capital, the Spirit
Operating Partnership, CCPTII and the Cole Operating Partnership
aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint
seeks a declaration that defendants have breached their fiduciary
duties or aided and abetted such breaches and that the Merger
Agreement is unenforceable, an order enjoining a vote on the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, rescission of
the transactions in the event they are consummated, imposition of
a constructive trust, an award of fees and costs, including
attorneys' and experts' fees and costs, and other relief.


SPRINT NEXTEL: Ordered to Pay Lawyer Fees in Rights-of-Way Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge ordered Sprint, Qwest and others to pay more than
$1.89 million in attorneys' fees as part of a $7 million
settlement over claims that they illegally installed fiber-optic
cables on hundreds of miles of railroad rights-of-way in
Pennsylvania.

U.S. District Judge Arthur Schwab said the fees were "reasonable"
in light of the more than $7 million settlement between landowners
and the four telecommunications companies named in their 2012
federal class action.

The landowners accused Sprint, Qwest, Level 3 Communications and
WilTel Communications of excavating their land and installing a
fiber-optic cable system within railroad rights-of-way in Beaver
County, Pa.  They claimed that over the last several decades, the
companies competed to create a nationwide telecommunications
network using the new technology "as quickly as possible, but
faced the daunting task of laying cable across thousands of miles
of land."

"To achieve both lower costs and extra speed in installing their
telecommunications cable systems, defendants deliberately bypassed
plaintiffs and members of the class on whose property defendants
wanted to, and did, install their telecommunications cable
systems," their complaint states.

The companies allegedly agreed to compensate several railroads
across the country, including Union Pacific Railroad Co., BNSF
Railway Co., and CSX Transportation Inc.

"Upon information and belief, defendants have paid millions of
dollars to the railroads in exchange for purported licenses or
easement agreements allowing defendants to use the railroad rights
of way on or adjacent to property owned by plaintiffs and members
of the class," the lawsuit states.

But landowners said the companies should have negotiated with and
paid them instead of the railroads.

Last October, Schwab preliminarily approved the settlement for
about 910 miles of rights of way throughout Pennsylvania, and
notices were mailed to 21,285 current and former property owners
on March 1.  He finally approved the settlement late in June.

"The total attorneys' fees and expenses incurred by settlement
class counsel in the decade-plus right-of-way litigation
culminating in this settlement, excluding local counsel fees and
expenses, were just over $60 million as of March 31, 2011; that
number has since increased as settlement class counsel have
performed substantial work in seeking approval of the settlements
in courts around the country, and it will continue to do so until
the settlements are fully administered," Schwab wrote.  "The
settling defendants in the right-of-way litigation have agreed to
pay a total of $41.5 million in attorneys' fees and expenses in
settlement of the 46 state actions (and the District of Columbia)
nationwide."

Class counsel estimated that nearly $4.4 million in cash benefits
are available for class members to claim, plus $802,000 in
administrative costs and $1.89 million in attorneys' fees -- 26.8
percent of the fund -- bringing the total gross value of the
settlement to more than $7 million, according to the order.

The fact that no class members objected to the $1.89 million award
of fees and costs "further supports finding it reasonable," Schwab
concluded.


STARBUCKS CORP: Baristas, Shift Supervisors to Split Tips
---------------------------------------------------------
Marlene Kennedy at Courthouse News Service reports that Starbucks
can pool tips and split them among baristas and shift supervisors,
New York's highest court ruled.

The company, with hundreds of coffeehouses in New York and
thousands worldwide, collects customer tips in jars near the
registers and distributes the money weekly to baristas and shift
supervisors based on the number of hours each of them works.

Assistant store managers and store managers are excluded from the
tip-sharing pool.

Two groups of New York-based Starbucks employees challenged the
formal policy in 2008.  In one putative class action, baristas
claimed that shift supervisors should not share in the tips;
another involved assistant store managers claiming that they
should be part of the tip-sharing pool.

A federal judge ruled for Starbucks in both cases, but the 2nd
Circuit punted a question of New York law to the state's highest
court.

The first asks what factors determine whether an employee is an
"agent" of his employer, and thus ineligible for sharing in a tip
pool under New York's labor law.

The Court of Appeals let the Starbucks policy stand June 26, 2013.

"In sum, an employee whose personal service to patrons is a
principal or regular part of his or her duties may participate in
an employer-mandated tip allocation arrangement under Labor Law
196-d, even if that employee possesses limited supervisory
responsibilities," Judge Victoria Graffeo wrote, joined by four
colleagues on the court.  "But an employee granted meaningful
authority or control over subordinates can no longer be considered
similar to waiters and busboys within the meaning of Section 196-d
and, consequently, is not eligible to participate in a tip pool."

Seattle-based Starbucks employs four categories of workers in each
of its stores: baristas, shift supervisors, assistant store
managers and store managers.

Baristas are front-line workers who take and prepare orders, run
the register, clean tables and stock product.  Shift supervisors
do many of the same tasks, but have some supervisory
responsibilities, such as assigning baristas to particular
stations.  Both work on a part-time, hourly basis.

Assistant store managers may also perform customer-oriented tasks,
but function primarily as a store manager's deputy, helping with
personnel and payroll.  Managers and assistant managers are full-
time employees eligible for bonuses and benefits.

New York Labor Law 196-d, which is applicable to the Starbucks
appeals, "admittedly [is] not a model of clarity," Graffeo wrote.

The section dates to 1968, when the goal was to end the practice
of employers skimming money intended as tips for workers.  The
statute says that "no employer or his agent or an officer or agent
of any corporation, or any other person" can retain any part of
the gratuity intended for a worker.

As requested by the hospitality industry, the section also
preserved tip-sharing practices among waiters, busboys and
"similar" employees.

In their class action, the baristas used the "agent" language to
argue that any employee with supervisory responsibility -- no
matter how limited -- was barred from the tip pool.  That excluded
shift supervisors, they said.

The assistant managers argued the opposite in their class action:
that only employees with full managerial authority -- like hiring
and firing -- were "agents" barred from tips.  That made them
eligible, they said.

Graffeo noted that the court took some guidance from the state
Department of Labor, which offered an amicus curiae brief.

In 2011, the agency promulgated the so-called Hospitality Industry
Wage Order, which "clarified and unified" tip-splitting policies
previously found in a patchwork of opinions and written
guidelines, according to the ruling.

The order "makes clear" that participation in a tip pool should be
based on a worker's duties, not title, the court found.

"It is therefore evident that employer-mandated tip splitting
should be limited to employees who, like waiters and busboys, are
ordinarily engaged in personal customer service, a rule that
comports with the 'expectation[s] of the reasonable customer,'"
Graffeo wrote, quoting precedent.

"Consequently, we cannot agree with [the baristas'] contention
that even the slightest degree of supervisory responsibility
automatically disqualifies an employee from sharing in tips under
Labor Law 196-d."

Though the assistant store managers argued that they are "similar"
to waiters and busboys, Graffeo said "there comes a point" at
which managerial duties make a worker less involved in directly
serving customers.

"We conclude that the line should be drawn at meaningful or
significant authority or control over subordinates," she said,
offering examples such as helping in performance evaluations or
creating work schedules.

Power to hire and fire is not the exclusive test, according to the
ruling.

"Meaningful authority, not final authority, should be the
standard," Graffeo wrote.

The 2nd Circuit had also sought clarification of whether state
labor law allows employers to exclude from the pool employees who
otherwise would be tip-eligible.

Graffeo noted that the lower court "effectively answered the
second question in the affirmative, holding that Labor Law 196-d
excludes certain people from an employer-mandated tip pool but
does not require the inclusion of all employees not statutorily
barred from participation."

"It is clear that Starbucks' decision to exclude assistant store
managers from the tip pool is not contrary to Labor Law 196-d,"
Graffeo wrote.

Judges Robert Smith and Jenny Rivera partly dissented in separate
opinions.

Smith found Labor Law 196-d inapplicable to the Starbucks appeals
because the statute dealt with a boss or fellow employee demanding
part of a worker's tips.

"No one is doing that in this case," Smith wrote.  "The only issue
is how the pool is to be shared among the people who earn the tips
-- a subject on which the statute has nothing to say."

Rivera said she agreed with the majority's conclusion on the first
certified questions, but "I would decline to answer the second
certified question."

"Put otherwise," she said, "the majority's suggestion that
assistant store managers are employer's agents ineligible to
participate in a tip pool renders unnecessary its further
consideration of the second certified question."

Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- of Lichten &
Liss-Riordan in Boston argued for Jeana Barenboim, the lead
plaintiff for the baristas.  Adam Klein of Outten & Golden in New
York represented Eugene Winans, the lead plaintiff for the
assistant store managers.  Rex Heinke, Esq. --
rheinke@akingump.com -- of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in Los
Angeles represented Starbucks Corp.

Amicus curiae briefs also were submitted by the New York State
Restaurant Association Inc., Unite Here Local 100, Align: Alliance
for a Greater New York and the New York City Hospitality Alliance.


TALENTI GELATO: Recalls Toasted Almond Gelato
---------------------------------------------
Talenti Gelato & Sorbetto is voluntarily initiating a product
recall of Talenti Gelato Toasted Almond Gelato with the UPC # 1
86852 00039 6 with a BEST BY DATE of 11/15/2014 M1 as a
precautionary measure.  The recall was initiated after it was
discovered that the product containing pecans was distributed in
packaging that did not reveal the presence of pecans.  An
investigation is ongoing.

This recall affects 816 pints of product with the BEST BY DATE of
11/15/2014 M1 on the bottom of the container.  This product was
sold at 65 retail food stores in Alaska, Connecticut, Idaho,
Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.

People who are allergic to pecans could have a serious or life-
threatening reaction if they consume this product. For consumers
who are not allergic to pecans, there is no safety issue with the
product.  The company has received no reports of illnesses
associated with this product.

Pictures of the Products are available at:

          http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm359195.htm

No other Talenti Gelato branded products are affected by this
voluntary recall.

Consumers in possession of the recalled product should not consume
it and should discard it.  Consumers with questions may contact
the company at (612) 455-8104, Monday - Friday, 7am - 7pm, EDT.


UNITED STATES: Class Suit v. SEC Over Stanford Scheme Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------
David Lee at Courthouse News Service reports that the Securities
and Exchange Commission should not face a class action for its
failure to investigate R. Allen Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi
scheme, a federal judge ruled.

Several investors in Stanford International Bank Ltd. sued the
agency in 2012, seeking relief under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
They said the SEC knew of the bank and Stanford Group Co.'s
scheming, and that former Fort Worth regional enforcement director
Spencer Barasch "was negligent and engaged in deliberate
misconduct" by failing to investigate before the investors
suffered massive losses.

"Had Barasch not done as he did, none of the plaintiffs would or
even could have invested with SIBL -- its' doors would have been
shut -- and the damages suffered by the plaintiffs would have been
completely avoided," according to their complaint.

The federal government later moved to dismiss the suit for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the SEC enjoys complete
discretion in deciding what matters to investigate under the
discretionary function exception to the FTCA.

U.S. District Judge Shelly Dick in Baton Rouge, La., agreed,
dismissing the action and declining to certify class.

"While the alleged conduct of Barasch is disturbing, the Supreme
Court requires this court to examine 'the nature of the actions
taken and whether they are susceptible to policy analysis,' not
'the agent's subjective intent in exercising the discretion
conferred by statute or regulation,'" the 12-page opinion states.
"Further, even if Barasch abused the discretion conferred to him,
the FTCA clearly states that the discretionary function exception
applies 'whether or not the discretion involved be abused.'  The
decision by Barasch to initiate investigation, and to follow
through once he indicated he would refer the matter, is clearly a
matter of choice."

Dick also concluded the plaintiffs failed to allege facts showing
the challenged actions are not grounded in public policy
considerations.  He agreed with the defense that a regulatory
agency's decisions over what to investigate are "quintessential"
public policy decisions.

"Because the SEC cannot investigate every matter, the agency must
decide what leads to pursue and which are most likely to produce
the greatest benefit to the public," Dick wrote.  "The government
contends these decisions fundamentally depend on the agency's
policy considerations."

Stanford was convicted of securities fraud in Houston in 2012 and
sentenced to 110 years in federal prison.  Earlier this year, U.S.
District Judge David Godbey in Dallas ordered Stanford to pay the
SEC more than $6.76 billion in disgorgement, civil penalties and
interest.  In granting the SEC's motion for partial summary
judgment, Godbey disagreed with Stanford's claim that his criminal
trial was unfair.


URBAN OUTFITTERS: Faces Overtime Class Action
---------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Urban Outfitters dba
Anthropologie stiffed workers for overtime, a class action claims
in Federal Court.


VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Offer
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Visionworks of America
defrauds consumers with a deceptive "buy one get one free" offer,
a class action claims in Cuyahoga County Court.


VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suit Over "Redline" Diet Supplements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Vital Pharmaceuticals'
"Redline" diet supplements have hospitalized people with vomiting,
convulsions and heart problems, a class action claims in Federal
Court.


WELLS FARGO: Judge Certifies Calif. Borrowers' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge has certified
a class of borrowers who claim that Wells Fargo charged them for
force-place flood insurance for California property.

The judge denied all other class-certification attempts, including
a bid for a nationwide and Arkansas class.


WILLIAMS OLEFINS: Faces Class Action Over Chemical Plant Explosion
------------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Samuels, writing for NOLA.com, reports that a lawsuit was
filed on June 14 against Williams Olefins, the Geismar chemical
plant where an explosion on June 13 injured 77 people and killed a
29-year-old employee.

Galen Mitchell, who was working at the nearby BASF plant, filed
the lawsuit in 23rd Judicial District Court in Ascension Parish,
and is asking that it be certified as a class action lawsuit.

Darryl Becnel, one of Mr. Mitchell's lawyers, said the worker's
throat burned and he had sinus problems following the explosion.
Mr. Mitchell was on a scaffold when the explosion occurred at
about 8:30 a.m. on June 13.

A combination of propylene and propane caught fire in the
explosion, company officials say.  Propylene emissions can be a
carcinogen and can cause difficulty breathing, said Anne Rolfes,
director of the Louisiana Bucket Brigade environmental group.

Mr. Becnel said he believes the firm can prove that Williams was
negligent.

"It was in their possession, it was their plant," he said.  "We've
still got a lot of discovery to go through, but we think we can
make a case for negligence."

Williams president Alan Armstrong said at a press conference on
June 14 he was not aware of the lawsuit.


WINDSTREAM CORPORATION: Settles Gross Receipts Surcharge Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Windstream Corporation entered into a proposed class settlement in
a suit alleging that the company overcharged customers because it
collected a gross receipts surcharge, according to the company's
May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

According to the Company, "On June 22, 2009, a putative class
action lawsuit was filed in Kentucky federal district court on
behalf of current and former customers in Kentucky. The complaint
alleged that we overcharged customers because we collected a gross
receipts surcharge ("GRS") in violation of state and federal
statutes and tariffs and common law. The court referred the state
tariff issues to the Kentucky Public Service Commission ("Kentucky
PSC")."

"In 2011, the federal court ruled that the GRS was a rate that
should have been listed in our federal tariffs prior to its
collection and that class certification was proper. Based on that
ruling, in the third quarter 2011, we accrued an amount that was
not material and that represented the amount of loss estimable and
probable at the time. On May 4, 2012, the Kentucky PSC issued an
order also finding the GRS was a rate that should have been in our
local retail tariff before being assessed on certain types of
services.

"We appealed the order to state court in Franklin County,
Kentucky, primarily asserting that the Kentucky PSC erred in
classifying the GRS as a rate. Additionally, on July 22, 2012, the
federal court formally certified a class of all retail and
wholesale Windstream customers assessed the GRS on services
subject to our federal tariff.

"We filed an interlocutory appeal of the class certification with
the Sixth Circuit. On November 1, 2012, the Sixth Circuit denied
the appeal, holding that the matter was not ripe for a decision.
On March 29, 2013, we entered into a proposed class settlement and
the settlement terms are subject to objections from individual
class members and approval of the federal court. We anticipate
court approval of the settlement terms this year. The final
settlement is not expected to be material in excess of the amount
we currently have accrued."


WISE MEDIA: Fraud Class Action Proceeds in California
-----------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge left the bulk of a class action against a cellphone spammer
intact, leaving it to face the music for charging millions of
customers for unwanted services.

Lead plaintiffs Edward Fields, Cathie O'Hanks, Erik Kristianson,
Richard Parmentier, Kimberly Brewster and Kristian Kunder filed
their class action in October 2012 after receiving unsolicited
text messages from defendant Wise Media.

The texts contained information about the company's subscription
plans offering flirting tips, horoscope updates, celebrity gossip
and weight loss advice.

A typical initial text sent to cellphone users by Wise Media
stated: "Lovegenietips Flirting Tips; 3msg/week for $9.99/m T&Cs:
lovegenietips.com Msg&data rates may apply. Reply HELP for help,
STOP to cancel."  Wise Media sent the texts with the help of
equipment that produced cellphone numbers through a random
sequential number generator.

Then, through a process known as "cramming," Wise Media enlisted
the help of aggregators -- including co-defendants Mobile
Messenger Americas, mBlox Incorporated and Motricity -- to act as
middlemen between itself and cellphone companies.

The aggregators placed the charges on millions of cellphone bills
and monitored complaints -- for a piece of the revenue pie --
regardless of whether users canceled or even responded to the
texts at all.

Mobile Messenger Americas moved for dismissal of claims against
it, which included violations of state unfair competition laws,
conversion, negligence, unjust enrichment and money had and
received.  The company argued that the class failed to meet
heightened pleading standards by spelling out the fraudulent
activities.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup, of the Northern California
district, disagreed and found that all the causes of action rely
"on the same unified course of fraudulent conduct, namely the
allegedly fraudulent cramming scheme whereby plaintiffs were
enrolled in and charged for subscription plans without
permission."

Alsup found that the plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded claims for
two of the three prongs of California's unfair competition law.
He said that, despite Mobile Messenger's arguments that violations
of the Public Utilities Code section relating to telephone charges
applies only to phone companies and not aggregators, the
plaintiffs adequately levied claims of unlawful activity.

"While [the PUC section] is silent as to which parties it governs,
it is Mobile Messenger who glides over the clear meaning of the
statute and the thrust of plaintiff's complaint," Alsup wrote.
"No court has limited it to telephone companies or precluded its
applicability to billing aggregators, and Mobile Messenger cites
no authority supporting its contention that it should be exempt."

The plaintiffs also satisfied the fraud prong, since the
aggregators' conduct would likely deceive members of the public.
However, such conduct failed to meet the threshold of amounting to
unfair competition under state law according to the judge.

"The unfairness prong must be tethered to some legislative policy;
otherwise the courts will roam across the landscape of business
practices picking and choosing which they like and which they
dislike," Alsup wrote.  "Plaintiffs urge that Mobile Messenger's
conduct 'offends established public policies and is immoral,
unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and substantially injurious to
consumers.'  This cursory allegation fails to state a claim under
the unfairness prong.  Plaintiffs' opposition brief further argues
that Mobile Messenger's conduct 'threatens competition' among
aggregators because the proceeds from the subscription plans could
subsidize the fees it charges to its clients.  This contention
appears nowhere in the complaint, which also fails to allege any
specific constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provision to
which Mobile Messenger's conduct is tethered."

Alsup also left the class's actions for conversion, negligence --
and the common law counts of unjust enrichment and money had and
received -- intact.  He found that at this stage of the
proceedings, there was sufficient cause to believe that money was
taken from cellphone users and restitution must be paid.

"Mobile Messenger argues that plaintiffs have not identified the
sum of money converted with the requisite specificity and that the
complaint merely asserts that the aggregator 'shared in the
revenue' with Wise Media.  This is inaccurate. Plaintiffs claim
that Mobile Messenger charged consumers $9.99 per month -- an
amount of money that is capable of identification," Alsup wrote.
He gave the lead plaintiffs until July 12 to amend their complaint
to fix deficiencies in their unfair competition action.

A similar and short-lived class action against Wise Media -- also
filed last year -- ended after the company produced website and
text message evidence that the lead plaintiff in that case had
consented to the "Lovegenietips" subscription plan.


* Automakers' Bid for Arbitration Threatens Consumer Protection
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Jensen, writing for The New York Times, reports that
when the transmission in Sarah and Scott McKinney's 2004 Audi A6
failed after five years, the repair cost thousands of dollars.
Audi wouldn't cover it, the McKinneys say, though the problem was
a common one -- so widespread that it later became the subject of
a federal class-action suit.

The McKinneys, who live in Arlington Heights, Ill., say they are
hoping a preliminary settlement in that suit will bring them a
reimbursement later this year.

"I think it is our only hope," Ms. McKinney said.

That recourse may not be available for car owners in the future,
as some automakers have started to challenge class actions -- and
to a lesser extent, lemon laws -- by trying to force consumers to
agree instead to a binding arbitration process.

F. Paul Bland Jr., a senior attorney at Public Justice, a
nonprofit consumer advocacy group, sees this as a brazen effort to
take away important consumer automotive rights.  If the automakers
behind this effort are successful, consumer watchdogs say, owners
like Gary Peterson of Spring Hill, Fla., might be stuck with
defective vehicles that cannot be repaired.

The steering of Mr. Peterson's 2011 Kia Sorento pulled so suddenly
and strongly that the vehicle sometimes changed lanes by itself.
When he could no longer tolerate the problem -- and concluded that
Kia would not help -- he saw the lemon law as his only chance.

"Well, short of a lawsuit how are you going to take on a big
company like Kia?" Mr. Peterson said. His complaint resulted in
Kia's having to buy back the vehicle.

That recourse might not be possible if the automakers' efforts are
successful.

The remedies sought by the McKinneys and by Mr. Peterson took
different approaches.  In a class action, thousands of consumers
can benefit when a product they bought is judged to be defective.

In a typical lemon-law case, a lone consumer starts with
arbitration, generally choosing among arbitration firms approved
under each state's lemon law.  If the outcome is unsatisfactory,
there are provisions to appeal, including the courts.

But now a few automakers are trying to do away with those
resources by taking advantage of something consumers have done for
decades when buying a vehicle: signing an agreement with the
dealer to use arbitration to resolve disputes.  Some automakers --
including Honda, Toyota and Mercedes-Benz -- are arguing that
these sales agreements cover them, too.

Consequently, the automakers say, consumers may not use class-
actions or lemon laws to get restitution.  Instead, they argue,
the consumer must use binding arbitration, in which the decision
is final.

"I think this is a very worrisome issue," said Christine Hines,
the consumer and civil justice counsel at Public Citizen, a
nonprofit consumer advocacy group.

Arbitration takes consumers out of a public process -- the court
or state-monitored lemon laws -- and puts them in a private
system, Ms. Hines said.  Moreover, she said, it requires the
consumer to play by rules set by the arbitration firm approved by
the automaker.

Groups of consumers represented by a class-action may be happy to
be included even if they receive only a small benefit, but few
would devote the time, effort and expense to go into arbitration
alone against an automaker, consumer advocates say.

"So one of the main benefits from the company's standpoint is to
eliminate claims against the company," said Jean Sternlight, a law
professor at the University of Nevada Las Vegas, who studies
arbitration.

The legal force behind these challenges is the 2011 decision of
the United States Supreme Court in AT&T Mobility L.L.C. v.
Concepcion.  A result of that decision is that companies can bar
consumers from bringing class-action suits and instead require
each consumer to individually use binding arbitration.

Some critics argue that too often class-action suits benefit the
plaintiffs' lawyers while consumers get little of value.

But some class actions do help consumers with compensation and
extended warranties, said Clarence Ditlow, executive director of
the Center for Auto Safety.

Mr. Bland of Public Justice said that class-action suits could
also reveal information about defects that manufacturers might
want to keep secret -- something that was possible in arbitration.

For example, Mr. Ditlow said, information that came out of suits
over Firestone tire failures on Ford Explorers helped to prompt
Congressional hearings and led in 2000 to Congress's passing the
Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and
Documentation Act.

Last year, Honda and Toyota separately asked federal district
courts in California to dismiss class-action suits and compel each
of the thousands of consumers who wanted to be compensated to
individually use binding arbitration.

In the Honda case, in Federal District Court for the Northern
District of California, the plaintiffs claimed the 2008-10 Accords
burned oil at a much greater rate than would be expected; Honda
lost.

The Toyota case involved allegations of unintended acceleration.
Toyota also lost when a federal judge for the Central District of
California rejected the arbitration argument because Toyota
brought it up late in the proceedings.

Spokesmen for neither Honda nor Toyota would comment on the cases,
saying the outcomes are pending.

Asked if Toyota would again try to get class-actions replaced by
arbitration, a spokesman, Mike Michels, wrote that "while we also
don't comment on future legal strategy, I can say that we believe
arbitration is generally a better path to resolution for both
customers and Toyota."

Commenting on whether there would be a repeat of Honda's challenge
to class-action suits, Chris Martin, a company spokesman, wrote in
an e-mail: "Every claim is different, and we'll always respond to
them on a case-by-case basis as appropriate."

While Honda and Toyota failed, Mercedes-Benz succeeded last
September when a judge in the Federal District Court of the
Northern District of California ruled that the owner of a 2008
E350 had to use arbitration instead of pursuing the state's lemon
law in court.

The judge agreed with Mercedes that the Supreme Court's Concepcion
decision made binding arbitration appropriate.

Richard H. Frankel, a law professor at Drexel University, said
that was an alarming expansion of the Concepcion case, because it
went beyond class actions and into lemon laws. "If courts are
willing to do that, then I think consumer claims in general are in
a lot of trouble," he said.

Mercedes was not attempting to get around the lemon law in that
case, a Mercedes spokeswoman, Donna Boland, wrote in an e-mail.

Automakers would benefit if dealers agreed to include them in the
binding agreements that consumers sign when buying a vehicle, said
Ms. Sternlight, the law professor.  "I think it would lead to a
great decrease in the number of lemon law claims that would be
filed by consumers, and a huge decrease in the number of class-
actions that could be filed by dissatisfied customers against
manufacturers for product defects," she said.

In that case, consumers would be required to press their claims
through arbitration, Ms. Sternlight said.  She said she doubted
that many would do that because few individuals have the resources
to hire experts and challenge an automaker.

It is not clear, however, why dealers would choose such a legal
link.

"The dealers are fiercely independent of the manufacturers," said
Roger Billings, a law professor at Northern Kentucky University,
whose work includes legal issues involving dealerships and
automakers.  "They are not agents of the manufacturers for any
purpose whatsoever."

Charles Cyrill, a spokesman for the National Automobile Dealers
Association, declined to comment on the matter.


* Legal Experts Expect Wave of Suits Over Unpaid Internships
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Becker, writing for Reuters, reports that when two former
interns at the New Yorker and W Magazine sued parent company Conde
Nast Publications on June 13, legal experts said it could be the
first in a wave of lawsuits challenging companies who pay little
or nothing for student labor.

The lawsuit comes just two days after a judge found that Fox
Searchlight Pictures violated labor laws when it used unpaid
interns for production tasks on "Black Swan," the 2010 film
starring Natalie Portman.

Employment lawyers said that decision and similar lawsuits that
are likely to follow would force employers to reconsider using
unpaid or underpaid interns, first in "glamour" industries such as
movies and publishing, where the practice has become standard, and
then in industries that have implemented similar policies to
reduce labor costs in a flagging economy.

"This trend is probably going to expand beyond media companies and
beyond New York," said Laura O'Donnell, a lawyer at Haynes & Boone
in San Antonio who represents management in labor disputes.  "I
think employers in all industries across the country need to take
note."

The June 13 lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, which also had issued the decision
on June 11 against News Corp's Fox Searchlight.

Lauren Ballinger, an intern at W Magazine for several months in
2009, and Matthew Leib, who had internships at the New Yorker in
2009 and 2010, said Conde Nast violated federal labor laws.

Ms. Ballinger received $12 a day to organize accessories, run
personal errands for editors and make deliveries to vendors.
Mr. Leib got a flat rate of $300 to $500 for each three- to four-
month internship, which included reviewing submissions to the New
Yorker's "Shouts and Murmurs" section, responding to emails sent
to the magazine, proofreading and opening mail.

The lawsuit, which seeks a class action on behalf of all affected
Conde Nast workers, said the Fair Labor Standards Act required the
company to pay an hourly minimum wage.

Law firm Outten & Golden, which brought both the Conde Nast and
the Fox Searchlight lawsuits, is identifying individuals who held
unpaid internships during the past six years and is reviewing the
conditions of their employment for possible wage-and-hour
violations.

The firm is also handling a lawsuit against Hearst Corp by former
Harper's Bazaar magazine intern Xuedan Wang.  In that case, Judge
Harold Baer, also in the Southern District of New York, said Ms.
Wang, who had sought class-action certification, could not sue on
behalf of other interns.  The law firm is appealing the ruling,
and Ms. Wang can still bring suit as an individual.

PBS talk show host Charlie Rose agreed to settle a similar class
action brought by Outten & Golden late last year on behalf of 190
unpaid interns who worked on his eponymous program between March
2006 and October 2012.

                           Benefit Test

"These young people are conscious of economic and class issues,"
Juno Turner, a lawyer at Outten & Golden, said of the Conde Nast
lawsuit.  "They see that people who are able to do these
internships are people of means, whose families are able to
support them while they work for little or no pay.

"They're standing up and saying: 'I've had enough of this.'"

A Conde Nast representative said the company did not comment on
pending litigation.

The U.S. Labor Department has developed a six-pronged test based
on a decades-old Supreme Court case related to railroad company
trainees to determine whether interns at for-profit companies must
be paid.  It takes into account factors that include the
educational value of the experience and whether interns displace
regular workers.

"The real key to the test is that the internship has to be for the
benefit of the intern as opposed to the employer," Ms. O'Donnell
said.

Although unpaid internships are difficult to track, their
prevalence is apparent in an annual survey of more than 30,000
students conducted by the National Association of Colleges and
Employers (NACE).  For the past three years, nearly half of all
interns surveyed have reported working without pay.

The 2013 Student Survey found that while paid internships
increased the likelihood of receiving a permanent job offer,
unpaid interns fared only slightly better than students who did no
internship at all.  The median starting salary for a newly minted
graduate with paid internship experience is $51,930, but only
$35,721 for those who have completed an unpaid internship, the
survey said.

That pattern was consistent across all academic majors, NACE
researcher Edwin Koc said.

Ross Eisenbrey of the Economic Policy Institute, a nonpartisan
think tank based in Washington, said would-be interns should think
twice about agreeing to work without pay, even to get a foot in
the door.

"You signal to employers that you aren't worth that much if you're
willing to work for nothing," Mr. Eisenbrey said.

The case is: Lauren Ballinger and Matthew Leib v. Advance Magazine
Publishers Inc, d/b/a Conde Nast Publications, U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, No. 13-4036.


                             *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A. Chapman,
Editors.

Copyright 2013. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *